Environmental Australia Justice

Unearthing Australia’sUnearthing toxic ash legacy coal How the regulation of toxic ash waste coal is failing Australian communities Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy

How the regulation of toxic coal ash waste is failing Australian communities Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy About Environmental Justice Australia Environmental Justice Australia is a not-for-profit public interest legal practice. Funded by donations and independent of government and corporate funding, our legal team combines a passion for justice with technical expertise and a practical understanding of the legal system to protect our environment.

We act as advisers and legal representatives to the environment movement, pursuing court cases to protect our shared environment. We work with community-based environment groups, regional and state environmental organisations, and larger environmental NGOs. We also provide strategic and legal support to their campaigns to address climate change, protect nature and defend the rights of communities to a healthy environment.

While we seek to give the community a powerful voice in court, we also recognise that court cases alone will not be enough. That’s why we campaign to improve our legal system. We defend existing, hard-won environmental protections from attack. At the same time, we pursue new and innovative solutions to fill the gaps and fix the failures in our legal system to clear a path for a more just and sustainable world.

Donate at: www.envirojustice.org.au/donate Acknowledgement We would like to acknowledge and thank Earthjustice, in particular their senior counsel Lisa Evans, for their expert input into this report.

For further information on this report please contact: Bronya Lipski, Lawyer, Environmental Justice Australia Email: [email protected]

Environmental Justice Australia Telephone: 03 8341 3100/1300 336 842 Email: [email protected] Website: www.envirojustice.org.au Post: PO Box 12123, A’Beckett Street VIC 8006 Address: Level 3, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton SEEK LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING SPECIFIC CASES

While all care has been taken in preparing this publication, it is not a substitute for legal advice in individual cases. For any specific questions, seek legal advice.

Produced & published by Environmental Justice Australia ABN 74 052 124 375 Publication date: 1 July 2019 Contents

Executive summary and recommendations 2 4 Australian coal ash laws and management 26 Recommendations 3 Victoria 27

1 Introduction 4 Victoria imposes financial assurances The problem 5 on ash dumps 27

Coal ash regulation in Australia 7 Problems with Victoria's management of coal ash 27 About this report 10 AGL Loy Yang Power Station coal ash Senate mine and ash dump rehabilitation enquiry 10 management issues 28

What is coal ash? 11 EnergyBrix/Morwell Power Station coal ash management issues 29 Fly ash 11 New South Wales 30 2 Coal ash contamination: human health and environmental damage 12 Dams safety legislation and Dams Exposure pathways 14 Safety Committee 30

Surface water contamination 15 NSW pollution law 30

Harm to aquatic life 15 Problems with NSW’s management of coal ash 30 Groundwater contamination 15 Lack of financial assurances 31 Fugitive dust/air pollution 15 The toxic waste inside a NSW ash dam 32 Soil contamination 15 Vales Point and Liddell power station coal Lake Macquarie citizen science by Hunter ash management issues 33 Community Environment Centre 16 Queensland 34 Yallourn power station coal ash management issues 17 Coal ash from Tarong power stations ends up in Brisbane suburb 35 Coal ash dust in NSW – Wallerawang and Eraring power stations 18 Western Australia 36

3 Coal ash disposal management 20 5 Coal ash reuse – is it safe? 38 Potentially less harmful disposal: dry, lined landfills 21 Encapsulated reuse in concrete, bricks and tiles 39

Most harmful disposal: surface impoundments Coal ash used as fill 39 or ‘ponds’ 21 Coal ash reuse regulation in Australia 39 Minefills 21 6 Best practices for coal ash disposal 40 Eraring ash dam expansion – ashes upon ashes 22 National Best Practice Guidelines and engineering Community at risk from unstable Eraring standards 43 ash dump? 23  Unplanned closure of Flinders power station ash Catastrophic coal ash spill 25 dump risks lives 46 7 Closure/post-closure of coal ash dumps 48 General principles for safe closure 50

8 Conclusion 52 Recommendations 54

1 Executive summary and recommendations

Coal-fired power has long been associated with air pollution and climate change. But coal-fired power stations produce another insidious waste problem, hidden in plain sight. Coal ash is one of Australia’s biggest waste problems, accounting for nearly one-fifth of the entire nation’s waste stream. It is toxic and, if not strictly disposed of, can contaminate air, soil and water and lead to serious health and environmental impacts.

All power stations in Australia have significant issues with their Coal ash cannot be disposed of safely. Even with best practice ash dumps, including: methods, there remains a significant contamination risk to the environment and communities. Coal ash dumps must be • long-term groundwater contamination at AGL Loy Yang; carefully and strictly managed and rehabilitated to minimise • torn liner and groundwater contamination at EnergyAustralia the risk posed to human and environmental health. Yallourn; Regulation is wholly inadequate. Reporting information is not • no lining to protect groundwater at either Origin Energy available to community scrutiny without resorting to Freedom Eraring or Delta Vales Point power stations; of Information. Regulators don’t require operators to maintain • asbestos dumped at Vales Point without community a bond or financial assurance for toxic coal ash dumps nor to knowledge and without licence. prepare best-practice rehabilitation and closure plans, and have not planned for future monitoring and maintenance of ash When coal is burnt to make electricity, it produces mountains dumps into the future. of toxic ash waste. At most coal-fired power stations, coal ash is mixed with saline wastewater and pumped into enormous In Australia, wet disposal is the primary means of coal ash dump sites creating a lethal cocktail of mercury, lead, arsenic, disposal because it is the cheapest form of dumping. The less selenium and chromium (‘wet disposal’). contaminating way of dumping ash is to keep it dry and firmly contained offsite. This practice is used by very few coal-fired This toxic slurry can leak into aquifers and soil needed by power stations in the country. Elsewhere, wet toxic sludge full farmers and the environment, and into rivers and lakes where of heavy metals and poisonous materials is left to sit in unlined our families fish and our children swim. When it is left to dry pits and leak into groundwater tables. out, winds can blow the toxic dust onto nearby communities where people breathe toxic pollution deep into their lungs. As this report shows, coal ash dumps are already causing water contamination, polluting aquatic ecosystems, and blowing The toxins in coal ash have been linked to asthma, heart toxic ash over communities who live near them. Cleaning disease, cancer, respiratory diseases and stroke. Although up existing contamination is critical to protecting water the health impacts of air pollution are becoming more sources, preventing air pollution, and planning future land use. well known, little research has been done in Australia on Governments must make these coal-fired power stations clean the health and environmental impacts from contact with up their act. Exceptionally poorly constructed ash ponds in or consumption of water and soil contaminated by toxins Australia, including Eraring, Vales Point, and Loy Yang, should in coal ash. Communities that live near coal-fired power be re-sited, reconstructed and managed to allow for thorough stations are at serious risk. Despite this, government clean-up of existing contamination. regulators allow ash dumps to be built and operated in a way that does not prevent groundwater contamination, By implementing the recommendations in this report, surface water contamination, pipeline spills, and community governments can reduce the toxic health and environmental exposure to toxic dust emissions. impacts of coal-fired power stations until we transition away from polluting energy to clean energy powered by sun, wind and waves.

2 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Recommendations 1. Australian governments initiate inquiries into coal ash dumps: Australian Parliaments need to initiate inquiries into coal ash dumps to understand the full extent of the toxic threat and make strong recommendations to protect human and environmental health. 2. Rehabilitation plans: Australian governments should impose an immediate obligation on ash dump owners and operators to prepare best practice rehabilitation, closure plans and post-closure plans in consultation with the communities who live near these toxic sites. 3. Tougher groundwater regulation: Australian regulators who oversee ash dumps should immediately develop and implement actions to clean up and manage ash dumps causing groundwater contamination, including re-siting operational ash dumps to thoroughly rehabilitate existing sources of contamination to best practice standards. 4. Safe containment of existing ash dumps: Australian governments should impose immediate obligations on ash dump owners and operators to convert wet dumps to dry ash emplacements. 5. Bond payments to protect communities: Australian governments should immediately impose a bond or financial assurance on ash dumps to protect Australian communities from bearing the cost burden of poorly managed or poorly rehabilitated ash dumps. 6. National guidelines: Australian governments should develop and ensure the implementation of enforceable national best practice guidelines for ash dump management, rehabilitation, and closure and post-closure management (as outlined in this report) to mitigate as far as practicable the future threat of contamination of land, groundwater, and surface water and prevent harm to human health. 7. Transparency and availability of information: Australian governments should make access to information about ash dumps transparent and available to the Australian community, including all existing management plans, details of financial assurance, rehabilitation plans, pollution incidents, fines and other enforcement actions taken by regulators, monitoring data, hydrogeological assessment, predictions for future contamination, and predictions for future land-use planning.

Executive summary and recommendations 3 1

Introduction

4 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy The problem Coal-fired power stations produce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, and toxic air pollution that causes death and disease. But the true cost of coal – both immediate and into the future – is still being unearthed.

Coal combustion produces millions of tonnes of toxic ash The United States Environment Protection Agency and post-combustion by-products. This toxic waste is usually conducted a risk assessment of coal ash dumps in the US and dumped very close to power stations and the communities warned that peak pollution from coal ash dump sites occurs who live near them. long after the waste is dumped. Peak exposures from coal ash dumps are projected to occur approximately 70 to 100 Coal ash pollution threatens human and environmental years after the dumps first began operation.7 health worldwide.1 Major coal-producing countries together produce about 3.7 billion tons of coal ash each year,2 Power station operators quite often describe coal ash as making it one of the world’s largest industrial waste streams. inert. On its website, Delta Electricity – operator of the Vales Australian power stations alone produce an estimated 10–12 Point power station on the NSW Central Coast – states that million tonnes of coal ash annually,3 and Australia has well fly ash (the most poisonous form of coal ash) is an ‘inert over 400 million tonnes of ash currently stored in dump sites mineral matter’, implying that it is non-toxic.8 Referring to coal throughout the country.4 ash this way downplays the risk it poses to environmental and human health. As this report shows, coal ash (including Coal naturally contains trace amounts of toxic chemicals fly ash) leaches toxic metals into groundwater, contaminates 5 which are concentrated in the ash when the coal is burned. aquatic ecosystems, pollutes surface water, and blows over Coal ash is a concentrated mixture of these toxins, which communities risking health and wellbeing. are known carcinogens, neurotoxins, and poisons that include arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, radium, selenium Power station operators and the coal ash reuse industry often and thallium.6 attempt to downplay the toxicity of Australian coal ash by comparing it with coal ash samples from other ash dump Despite the large volume and hazardous nature of coal ash, sites around the world.9 The toxicity of coal ash depends on it is disposed of without adequate safeguards to protect the chemical composition of the source coal, which differs communities and environmental health. The standard from mine to mine and often within coal seams from the treatment of this toxic waste in Australia is to mix it with same mine. Toxicity also depends on what pollution controls water and then pipe it to nearby ‘ponds’ or ‘dams’ that are installed on the power station. Therefore toxicological haven’t been built to protect groundwater and surface comparisons need to clearly identify the source of the water, and are not well managed to prevent ash blowing sample used. onto nearby communities. Industry studies have shown that some samples of Australian The language used to describe these toxic sites downplays the coal ash are lower in certain toxins, higher in others, and seriousness with which we need to take coal ash. Regulators in some instances tests results have shown no statistical use words like ‘dam’, ‘pond’, and ‘landfill’ to describe where the difference between toxins such as mercury and lead.10 ash goes. This report uses ‘dump’ to describe the site where Reports and studies that do not state explicitly where the ash is transferred. The current approach to ‘rehabilitation’ coal ash sample was taken from, which ash dump it was approved by all Australian governments and regulators compared to, and what methodology was used to conduct is to cap the dump and walk away, which is happening at the study cannot be said to be reflective of an ‘Australian’ decommissioned power stations including Hazelwood (Vic) example. and Munmorah (NSW). Australian coal ash is known to be higher in toxins such as Groundwater is contaminated underneath many Australian silica.11 Silica exposure can cause lung cancer, kidney disease, ash dumps, yet environmental regulators do not require that and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.12 Silica exposure operators clean up this contamination at the source. Because from coal ash dust is more likely to happen when wind many coal-fired power stations sit near recreational lakes carries ash dust from poorly managed ash dumps, such as has and reservoirs – such as near the Latrobe River in Victoria, happened in Port Augusta and Eraring power stations. the Calliope River and surrounding estuaries in Gladstone, Queensland, and Lake Macquarie on the New South Wales Central Coast – the potential for harm to aquatic life and human health is substantial. Water pollution from coal ash can raise cancer and other health risks, make fish unsafe to eat, and can cause long-term damage to aquatic ecosystems.

Introduction 5 Figure 1 Map of coal ash dumps in Australia

14

3 4 7 15

8 16

11

1

9 12 6 17

2 5 13

10 18

1 Bayswater 7 Gladstone 14 Stanwell & Liddell 8 Kogan Creek 15 Tarong 2 Bluewaters 9 Kwinana 16 Tarong North 3 Callide B 10 Loy Yang A 17 Vales Point 4 Callide C 11 Millmerran 18 Yallourn 5 Collie 12 Mt Piper 6 Eraring 13 Muja CD

6 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Coal ash regulation in Australia The regulation of coal ash dumps throughout Australia differs from state to state, is inconsistent between dump sites, and does not adhere to best practice construction, management or rehabilitation standards as practised in other parts of the world. For example:

• conditions for ash dump management differ from State to State, and in each State, from power station to power station; “The main concerns I have always held • there is no best practice management standard for ash about the ash dam is the leachate. We dumps in any State, or at a national level; know they were built in the late 60s. We • there is no requirement that power station operators know the technology was not to line any prepare ash dump rehabilitation and post-closure plans of these dams. So everything that goes in well before closure of the power station occurs; there, while it is contained in that area, still • access to information about ash dumps is extremely leaches down into the water table and limited, including access to groundwater monitoring data therefore leaches into Lake Macquarie.” and ash management plans which have to be acquired through Freedom of Information laws; • the only State that requires financial assurances be held for ash dumps is Victoria. Sue Wynn, Mannering Park Progress Association, NSW

Introduction 7 Figure 2 Summary of the problems at Australia’s 16 active coal ash dumps

Adequately Groundwater Financial bond? Ash management Rehabilitation/ lined? contaminated? plan? closure plan prepared? Yallourn (Vic)

Loy Yang (Vic)

Vales Point (NSW) Eraring (NSW)

Mount Piper (NSW)

Bayswater No information (NSW) Liddell (NSW) No information

Gladstone No information (QLD) Stanwell No information (QLD) Tarong (QLD) No information

Tarong Nth No information (QLD) Callide (QLD) Unknown No information Unknown Unknown

Kogan Creek No information Unknown (QLD)

Millmerran Unknown No information Unknown Unknown (QLD) Collie (WA) No information Bluewaters No information (WA)

[Ewington mine] Muja (WA) Supernatant dam Unknown - ok, otherwise managed under Contaminated Sites Act 2003 Kwinana (WA) Unknown - managed under [Perron Contaminated Quarry] Sites Act 2003

NB: The NSW EPA conducted an audit on the ash dumps for the operational power stations but did not audit groundwater seepage because it was ‘outside of the scope of the audit’. See: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/F296D19215D348A8BC16DEB4D2021A52.ashx

8 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Communities that live closest to power stations bear the greatest environmental burden of this toxic mess.

In Victoria, there are coal ash dumps in five locations – at the Queensland has several operational ash dumps, at Stanwell, Yallourn, AGL Loy Yang, Hazelwood, EnergyBrix/Morwell and Gladstone, Callide, Tarong, Tarong North, Millmerran and Anglesea power stations. The coal ash dumps at AGL Loy Kogan Creek power stations. The Collinsville ash dump is Yang and Yallourn power stations are still operational with currently being rehabilitated. the rest in various stages of rehabilitation. Loy Yang B power station, operated by Alinta, pumps its coal ash to the AGL Loy Western Australia has several operational ash dumps for the Yang premises. Collie, Muja and Bluewaters coal-fired power stations. The Collie and Muja power station ash dumps are located on site, There are five operational coal ash dumps in New South while the Bluewaters power station pipes its ash waste to the Wales for the Eraring, Mount Piper, Vales Point, Liddell nearby Ewington mine for storage, and the Kwinana power and Bayswater power stations. The coal ash dump sites station dumped its ash at Perron Quarry. for Wallerawang and Munmorah power stations are in the process of rehabilitation. Redbank power station, Some of the ash dumps in Australia are very close to currently mothballed, is licenced to dispose of its ash in communities, including residential areas, schools and the Warkworth mine.13 recreation centres. Most are extremely close to waterways.

Figure 3 Proximity of ash dumps to communities

Ash dump Proximity to communities Proximity to waterways Vales Point, • 180m from the nearest houses • 200m from Mannering Bay NSW Central • 320m from Doyalson Wyee RSL Club • 1026m from Wyee Creek Coast • 400m from Doyalson Baptist Church • 1300m from Colongra Lake • 900m from Tom Barney oval • 1040m from Wyee Public School

Eraring , NSW • 400m from Myuna Bay Sports and Recreation Centre • Ash dump run-off discharges into Central Coast • 2900m from closest house in Wangi Wangi Crooked Creek which flows into Whitehead’s Lagoon and Myuna Bay • 720m from Stockyard Creek

Yallourn, • 180m from Yallourn North Primary School • 120m from Latrobe River Latrobe Valley • 120m from Yallourn North residential area • 327m from Anderson Creek Victoria Tarong • 500m from Meandu Creek

Stanwell • 323m from nearest residence • 265m Spring Creek • 78m Stony Creek

Kogan Creek • 414m from Condamine River

Introduction 9 About this report Senate mine and ash dump This report introduces the serious threats of toxic pollution rehabilitation inquiry and regulatory failures of coal ash dumps in Victoria, New We proposed the need for national best practice South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia. These management and rehabilitation guidelines and the states were chosen because they contain Australia’s requirement that ash dump owners maintain a financial remaining operational coal-fired power stations, and assurance for ash dumps during the federal Senate therefore Australia’s operational coal ash dumps. Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects This report does not include information on the potential as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilities. These toxic legacy of closed coal ash dumps in urban areas. Most recommendations were accepted by most Committee capital cities in Australia and larger regional centres had members.14 coal-fired power stations – including Melbourne, Geelong, However the Committee did not come to a unanimous agreement on what the recommendations should Ballarat, Sydney and Brisbane – all of which have been 15 decommissioned. It is unknown where the ash from these be overall. Moreover, those Committee members who operations was dumped, whether on land or into adjacent accepted our recommendations also recommended that the ash dumps not be so rehabilitated that the ash could not be waterways, or the extent to which those toxic sites were 16 rehabilitated. accessed and reused in future.

This report is the product of research conducted by lawyers We welcome the recommendations that a national approach at Environmental Justice Australia, with additional specialist to best practice ash dump management and rehabilitation be expertise provided by lawyers and scientists at Earthjustice developed and that financial assurances be imposed on ash in the United States. Information that is publicly available dump operators. However it is paradoxical to recommend has been used, that is, accessible without engaging with the that rehabilitation of these toxic sites should not preclude Freedom of Information process. Despite the toxicity of ash future use of the ash. dumps and their proximity to communities, the amount of Ash dump rehabilitation must be comprehensive and adhere publicly available information on aspects of the dumps such to best practice standards to protect the environment as ash management plans and rehabilitation plans – where and human health, and minimise the impact of this toxic these exist – is extremely limited. legacy. Ash dumps are contaminated land sites that pollute There is a significant amount of information that is vital groundwater and pose a dust risk if not managed to strict to the public’s right to know about coal ash dumps and standards. Current ash dump sites need to be rebuilt to how they are managed, which is only available through thoroughly contain this toxic waste so that the former sites lengthy and expensive government Freedom of Information can be meticulously rehabilitated to prevent environmental procedures. It is highly concerning that comprehensive and community harm. information about coal ash dumps is not readily available to Given the failure of the federal Senate inquiry to deliver the Australian public. Communities have a right to know this unanimous recommendations, it is imperative that State information and should be included in decisions regarding governments initiate their own Parliamentary inquiries to ash dumps including expansion, rehabilitation, closure and understand the full extent of the impact of ash dumps post-closure planning. and the future implications of human and environmental This report includes a framework to develop National Best health. These inquiries should include site visits to each Practice Guidelines for coal ash dump management. It has ash dump, and terms of reference that include options been prepared to provide community with a checklist for improvements to current and future management to of aspects of coal ash dump management, rehabilitation, protect environmental and human health, preparation to closure and post-closure planning to be used when engaging rehabilitation plans, and development of planning for with regulators on coal ash dump matters including licence closure and ongoing management when power stations condition amendments, expansions, rehabilitation plans, and are decommissioned. proposals for new ash dumps.

This report makes seven recommendations that should be implemented immediately by Australian governments to reduce the toxic burden of coal ash dumps on Australian communities and minimise this toxic legacy to protect environmental and human health. Ash dump rehabilitation must be comprehensive and adhere to best practice standards to protect the environment and human health, and minimise the impact of this toxic legacy.

10 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy What is coal ash? Fly ash is the most toxic form of ash waste generated by power stations. Heavy metals and other chemicals mobilised Coal combustion generates several forms of solid waste in the combustion process are captured in the fly ash, collectively called ‘coal ash’. Coal ash consists of fly ash, infusing the ash with arsenic, lead, boron, selenium, thallium bottom ash (larger and heavier ash particles that accumulate and other toxic pollutants. Mercury adsorbs, or sticks, to on the sides and bottom of the boiler), and boiler slag (molten fly ash unless another material such as activated carbon is ash collected at the bottom of the boiler). If Australia begins added to the flue gas.17 The primary component of fly ash is to use pollution controls such as flue gas desulfurisation the silica, which presents hazards to health if inhaled.18 Fly ash is sludge from these controls would be included in coal ash. usually a light to medium grey colour. Fly ash The characteristics of the source coal affect both the toxicity of the coal ash and its volume.19 Both the form and Fly ash consists of very fine powder-like particles carried the concentrations of these trace elements also vary with out of the boiler by the flue gases. At power stations with coal type. effective pollution controls, most fly ash is captured by dust-collecting systems before it escapes the boiler’s Once the coal is burned it is usually mixed with water and stack. Particulate control devices used in Australia are piped to dump sites adjacent to the power station. This is the electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters (or ‘baghouses’). most common – and most environmentally dangerous – form Older pollution controls, such as electrostatic precipitators, of coal ash management and is used at almost all Australian are less efficient at capturing fly ash than baghouses power stations. which have been installed and retro-fitted into power stations internationally since the 1970s. Older electrostatic precipitators that aren’t routinely and strictly maintained can cause fly ash to be released from power station stacks, exposing the surrounding community to coal ash dust.

Figure 4 The main processes involved in coal combustion and generation of coal ash20

oic tac Emissions

oer tation E

oal oic As um

As ie

Produces ash which Ash is mixed with water and Coal is burnt in power station is captured piped to ash dump as a sludge

Introduction 11 2

Coal ash contamination: human health and environmental damage

12 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Burning coal concentrates the metals naturally found in coal. This means that coal ash contains a much higher concentration of toxic pollutants and metals on a per volume basis compared to its raw form.21

Toxic elements in coal ash include arsenic, barium, boron, contamination), the issues associated with contamination beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, lithium, from former sites are exacerbated from both a management manganese, mercury, molybdenum, radium, selenium, and rehabilitation perspective. thallium and other dangerous chemicals. These toxins cause a range of health impacts in every major organ of the human The US EPA risk assessment warns that peak pollution from body (see image below) including cancer, kidney disease, coal ash dump sites occurs long after the waste is dumped. reproductive harm, and damage to the nervous system, For example, peak exposures from coal ash dumps are especially in children.22 projected to occur 78 to 105 years after the ponds first began operation. Thus old dump sites, even if they cease receiving A United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) coal ash, still pose very significant environmental and human risk assessment found that living near unlined ash dumps health threats.25 increases the risk of damage to the liver, kidney, lungs and other organs as a result of being exposed to toxins Coal ash dumps that are not constructed and managed to at concentrations far above safe levels.23 Another recent best practice standards pose a significant contamination risk United States study found the prevalence of health and sleep to surrounding groundwater, surface water and air quality of problems were significantly greater in children living near coal communities. Contaminants from coal ash can and do leach ash dumps.24 through the bottom of ash dumps and into groundwater, run off into surface waters such as rivers and lakes, and dry In Australia many ash dumps are built on top of former out and blow over communities. All of these issues occur in ash dumps that were not lined, not rehabilitated, and Australia, as outlined below. not designed to protect groundwater, surface water and land from contamination. Although some of the new ash dumps built on top of former ash dumps, such as the ash dumps at Yallourn power station, are lined (although not to best practice and not without evidence of groundwater

Figure 5 Harm to human health from breathing and ingesting coal ash toxicants

Mercury Selenium Impacts include nervous system Inhalation can irritate the nose, damage and developmental harm, throat and lungs, causing coughing, such as reduced IQ. Poses particular wheezing, and shortness of breath. risk to children, infants and foetuses. Can also cause nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headache. Lead Repeated exposure can cause Exposure can result in brain swelling, irritability, fatigue, dental cavities, kidney disease, cardiovascular loss of nails and hair and problems, nervous system damage, depression. and death. It is accepted that there is no safe level of lead exposure, PM2.5 particularly for children. Particles less than 2.5mm can lodge deep in the lungs and cause Cadmium premature death, as well as lung May cause lung and prostate cancer and heart disease, decreased lung and damage reproductive system. function, asthma attacks, heart Inhalation can irritate lungs. Ingestion attacks and cardiac arrhythmia. can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain. Silica Silica exposure can cause lung cancer, kidney disease and chronic pulmonary disease. Respirable crystalline silica in coal ash can lodge in the lungs and cause silicosis, or scarring of the lungs.

Coal ash contamination: human health and environmental damage 13 Figure 6 Exposure pathways from coal ash dumps

Impact

Coal ash dump

Impact

Shallow groundwater Domestic and agricultural water supply Deep groundwater

14 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Exposure pathways Groundwater contamination Toxic heavy metals and other pollutants in coal ash can enter Groundwater contamination occurs when coal ash is groundwater, surface water bodies, soil and air, risking human inundated with water, and ash toxins leach into the underlying health, aquatic life, birds, wildlife and water quality. aquifer. Water reaches disposed ash via rain, surface run-on, disposal in a coal ash dump, or by placement of the ash Surface water contamination directly into groundwater or mine pools. If an ash dump is unlined or inadequately lined, the water will transport Because large volumes of water are needed to operate ash contaminants from the disposal area. Under certain steam powered turbines, coal-fired power stations are conditions, coal ash contamination in groundwater can flow generally located very close to rivers, lakes or other bodies several kilometres through aquifers and eventually migrate to of water. Since power stations dispose of ash very close to the surface of rivers, creeks and streams. power stations to avoid the expense of transporting large volumes of solid waste, these water bodies are at risk of Fugitive dust/air pollution contamination. Direct discharges of leachate or wastewater from coal ash dumps and/or the migration of contaminated When coal ash is dumped dry, or left to dry out, dust can groundwater can pollute these lakes, rivers and streams. be emitted into the air by loading and unloading, transport, These heavy metals can bioaccumulate in aquatic life and and wind from the ash dump site if the ash is not strictly ecosystems, threatening the health of these ecosystems and suppressed by spraying it with water or covering it with dirt. human health if contaminated marine life is consumed. Once in the air, this ‘fugitive’ dust can migrate off-site. As a result, workers and nearby residents can be exposed to Discharge of contaminated wastewater from coal ash dumps significant amounts of coarse particulate matter (PM10) and is a significant source of pollution to lakes and rivers. Waters fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Both have been linked to heart near dumps, including large lakes, commonly receive heavy disease, cancer, respiratory diseases and stroke.30 doses of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, selenium, thallium and other toxic contaminants. As described below, water testing Coal ash contains significant amounts of silica, in both by the Hunter Community Environment Centre on the New crystalline and amorphous form. Respirable crystalline silica South Wales Central Coast has shown elevated levels of in coal ash can lodge in the lungs and cause silicosis, or selenium and cadmium in Lake Macquarie near to ash dump scarring of the lung tissue, can result lung disease,31 and can overflow points.26 cause kidney and lung cancer.32

These dangerous discharges have serious consequences for When inhaled, toxic metals such as arsenic, chromium communities that live near coal-fired power stations and their (including the highly toxic and carcinogenic chromium VI), dumps. In the United States, tens of thousands of kilometers lead, manganese, mercury, and radium can cause a wide of rivers are polluted by coal ash and heavy metals from ash array of serious health impacts, ranging from cancer to dumps.27 The US EPA identified more than 250 individual neurological damage. instances where ash dumps have contaminated groundwater or surface waters.28 Soil contamination In Australia, many of the aquifers underneath ash dumps Fly ash contaminates soils surrounding coal-fired power are contaminated, including beneath the ash dumps of the stations when fugitive dust is not properly controlled at ash Loy Yang (Victoria), Yallourn (Victoria) and Muja (Western dumps or when the power station stacks lack equipment to Australia) power stations. capture ash. Under these conditions, soil may accumulate elevated levels of heavy metals, including arsenic.33 Harm to aquatic life Plants grown in coal ash-contaminated soils can experience The toxic metals in coal ash do not break down or dissolve elevated levels of toxic metals.34 Fly ash can render the soil over time. Many toxic metals like selenium bio-accumulate solid and impermeable because of the cementitious qualities and increase in concentration as they travel up the food of ash.35 Soil contamination can lead to elevated levels of chain. Harm to fish and other wildlife from ash dumps and contaminants in run-off or in the underlying groundwater.36 toxic run-off can be significant. Scientists have documented that coal pollutants, such as selenium and arsenic, build up to ‘very high concentrations’ in fish and wildlife exposed to coal dump leachate or run-off, and that those accumulating toxins can ultimately deform or kill animals.29 Fish and other wildlife that do survive can have toxins so high in their bodies that human consumption is dangerous.

Coal ash contamination: human health and environmental damage 15 Paul Winn from the Hunter Community Environment Centre conducting water sampling at Lake Macquarie. Source: HCEC.

Lake Macquarie citizen science by Hunter Community Environment Centre In 2019 the Hunter Community Environment Centre (HCEC), Office of Environment and Heritage that showed cadmium based in Newcastle, NSW, conducted water and sediment levels in mud crabs were so high that there is no safe level sampling in Lake Macquarie near water discharge points of consumption. However a NSW Environment Protection close to both the Vales Point and Eraring power stations. Authority (NSW EPA) media release in January 2019 stated HCEC’s report Out of the Ashes: Water Pollution and Lake that Lake Macquarie crabs contaminated with cadmium were Macquarie’s Ageing Coal-Fired Power Stations shows safe to eat provided consumption was restricted to six 150g concentrations of a number of heavy metals, including servings per month for an adult and three 75g servings for a arsenic, nickel, aluminium, copper and lead, to be at levels child.39 likely to be having a harmful impact on aquatic ecosystems, including edible fish, molluscs and crustaceans.37 Alarmingly, High levels of cadmium in the body can contribute to selenium concentrations found by HCEC at the Eraring power kidney failure, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and damage to station ash dump overflow point are 55 times higher than the the reproductive system. The NSW EPA’s failure to provide level recommended to protect birds and fish.38 rigorous information about health risks has potentially exposed people who eat fish and crab from Lake Macquarie Lake Macquarie is a popular place for locals and tourists alike to undue risk. to swim, sail, fish and go crabbing. As part of their research for Out of the Ashes, HCEC obtained a report by the NSW “We found after doing water testing that there were significant levels of heavy metals being discharged into Lake Macquarie. And some of those metals weren’t being regulated effectively by the EPA. Vales Point Power Station for example doesn’t have any restrictions on the amount of heavy metals that are released into Lake Macquarie from the power station.” Paul Winn, Hunter Community Environment Centre

16 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Source: Google Earth

Yallourn power station coal ash management issues

EnergyAustralia Yallourn power station produces about Consecutive environmental audits for Yallourn’s ash 260,000 tonnes of coal ash per year.40 The ash dumps hold dumps identify problems, including the absence of about six months’ worth of ash waste and are built on top thorough groundwater contamination detection.47 of a former ash dump inside a worked-out section of the EnergyAustralia Yallourn is obliged by its licence to ensure Yallourn open-cut brown-coal mine.41 Ash is piped from the that a strict monitoring program is implemented for the power station into dumps where the ash settles, the water ash dumps,48 but this monitoring system including its is drained, and the ash is excavated and trucked to another design and monitoring data is not publicly available. The worked-out section of the mine.42 2017 environmental audit for Yallourn states that there is evidence that groundwater has been contaminated by ash Groundwater under the former ash dump was contaminated dump leachate to the south of the ash dump,49 while other 43 prior to the construction of the new dumps. The current sources state unequivocally a contamination plume is ash dump is lined with plastic, however there have been underneath the dump site but remains within the Yallourn historical issues with maintaining the integrity of this liner as power station boundary.50 the ash is excavated and removed to a different section of the former mine area.44 Experts and EnergyAustralia suspect Publicly available information reveals that the Victorian EPA that damage has been caused to the floor liner, however has not required EnergyAustralia Yallourn to remediate the this has not been fully investigated because the ash dumps site to prevent ongoing ash dump contamination, despite operate on six-month cycles of filling and excavation.45 In information that groundwater contamination is occurring other words, EnergyAustralia won’t construct a best practice and knowledge that the liner of the ash dump is damaged. ash dump to ensure that cleaning, inspection and repairs No publicly available information shows whether the EPA to the current lining are undertaken and that groundwater requires EnergyAustralia Yallourn to prepare rehabilitation contamination is stopped at the source. and closure plans for the ash dumps, whether the EPA will Nor does the Victorian EPA require them to. require EnergyAustralia Yallourn to ensure the current ash dump liner adheres to best practice to prevent further In February 2015, a rupture in an EnergyAustralia ash disposal contamination, or to establish a comprehensive monitoring pipeline led to 8.6 megalitres of ash liquid being dumped system to monitor the groundwater contamination plume. into the Morwell River (enough to fill 3.5 Olympic swimming pools).46 The Victorian EPA investigation found that the owner EnergyAustralia was in breach of its licence and was subsequently fined $7,584. The Morwell River joins the Latrobe River further downstream, which is a tributary to the internationally important Ramsar-listed Gippsland Lakes. EnergyAustralia Yallourn power station produces about 260,000 tonnes of coal ash per year.

Coal ash contamination: human health and environmental damage 17 Ash dust plume from Eraring power station ash dump. Source: HCEC

Coal ash dust in NSW – Wallerawang and Eraring power stations

In 2007, high winds caused ash dust to escape the Kreosene The NSW EPA charged Delta for breaching its licence Vale Ash Repository (KVAR), the site for the fly ash waste condition to maintain the premises in a condition which generated at the Wallerawang Power Station, exposing the minimises or prevents emissions of dust from the premises. nearby community of Lidsdale in the NSW Central West Delta plead guilty and was fined $45,000 (out of a potential region to toxic dust.51 At the time of the offence the power $1 million).54 station was operated by Delta Electricity which was owned by the NSW government. In 2011, the NSW EPA fined Origin Energy Eraring $15,000 after strong winds carried ash dust from the Eraring ash Delta had contracted a third party to manage the KVAR. dump site in 2016.55 Eraring was fined a further $15,000 in Dust management included the progressive capping of the March 2019 for dust emissions from the coal ash dump.56 The ash mound by spraying it with either tar or lignosulfonate, Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) for Eraring does not keeping the ash wet to prevent dust escaping the boundary contain specific conditions about ash management at the of the premises, and building batters (walls) to adequately site other than dust must be managed to minimise emissions contain dust at the site. The NSW Land and Environment from the premises,57 and it is unknown what actions the EPA Court found that none of these measures had been requires the operator to implement. adequately undertaken, but that no environmental harm was caused by the offence.52 The court recognised the complexity of managing fly ash on a scale as large as that at the KVAR site.53

18 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Coal ash contamination: human health and environmental damage 19 3

Coal ash disposal management

20 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Coal ash cannot be disposed of safely. Even with ‘best practice’ methods, there remains a significant contamination risk to the environment and communities. Coal ash dumps must be carefully and strictly managed and rehabilitated to minimise the risk posed to human and environmental health by this toxic substance.

Coal-fired power stations can dispose of or reuse coal ash Wet dumps can be natural depressions, excavated ponds, in several ways. The least harmful disposal method is dry or diked basins that contain a mixture of coal ash and disposal in landfills with careful siting, design, monitoring and wastewater. The solids gradually settle out of this slurry, water treatment as needed in perpetuity.58 accumulating at the bottom of the dump. This process leaves a standing layer of water at the surface. This water contains The most environmentally hazardous disposal methods are: varying levels of the toxic chemicals in coal ash, and such discharges can and do pollute adjacent groundwater and • wet dumps (so-called ‘ash ponds’ or ‘ash dams’); surface water and permanently leave contaminated sediments • disposal in surface coal mines; in lakes and rivers.61 • use as fill in low-lying areas or road embankments; or In Australia, wet disposal is the primary means of disposal • being mixed into agricultural soils including potting mix. because it is the cheapest form of dumping. The bottoms of The most common form of coal ash waste management in most dumps in Australia are unlined or inadequately lined, Australia is the most harmful disposal option - wet ash dumps, and contamination of underlying groundwater occurs at most 62 where ash is mixed with water and piped to a nearby dump sites. Many ash dumps in Australia have been constructed site. These dumps are quite often built on top of former ash on top of former ash dumps sites, such as those at Eraring and dumps, on top of overburden piles (the dirt removed from a Yallourn power stations. Groundwater is contaminated under mine to access the coal), inside worked-out sections of coal the Loy Yang, Yallourn and Muja power stations. mines, dumped inside quarries, or purpose-built sites adjacent Despite the risks to communities who live near them, there to power stations. is very little publicly available information in Australia on the engineering of ash dumps. In NSW, the Dams Safety Potentially less harmful disposal: Committee oversees the structural integrity of ‘prescribed dry, lined dumps dams’ which include the Vales Point, Eraring, Bayswater and Liddell power station ash dumps. The power stations have Dry coal ash dumps should be constructed above the ground to report to the Committee but these reports are not made surface and well away from both surface and groundwater public. Similarly, where State Governments require that ash sources. Dumps are usually built in sections called ‘cells’, in dump operators prepare Ash Dam Management Plans, those which dry ash is placed in an ‘active’ cell and compacted until plans are not publicly available. the cell is filled. Completed cells are covered with soil or other material, and then the next cell is opened. Minefills These dumps are usually natural depressions or excavations Minefill (or mine disposal) involves the disposal of coal ash in that are gradually filled with waste, and frequently layers surface or underground mine voids.63 Ash is dumped, often of a landfill may reach well above the natural grade. Water with overburden, into worked-out sections of active coal contamination will occur if contaminated leachate and mines (where all the coal has been removed) or abandoned run-off from dumps are not properly controlled. Harmful coal mines. Mine disposal is commonly employed where the quantities of fugitive dust are often generated and dispersed power station and the mine are located near one another. by wind if ash is dumped when it is dry.59 This has to be carefully managed by utilising dust-suppression techniques, Ash is used as minefill in Australia in places including Olympic including spraying the ash with water, covering it with dirt, Dam, Mt Isa, and Ipswich,64 as well as the Yallourn (Vic), and compacting it tightly.60 Warkworth (NSW), Ewington (WA) and Kogan Creek (QLD) mines. Most harmful disposal: surface EnergyAustralia’s Mount Piper power station, near Lithgow in NSW, trucks its dry ash to the Western Main open cut mine impoundments or ‘ponds’ adjacent to the power station, and into the ash dump extension known as ‘Lamberts North’.65 Investigations into groundwater The most common method of coal ash disposal is piping it quality at Lamberts North shows the presence of heavy metals wet into surface dumps. This method is predominantly used including nickel and boron, and chloride in certain monitoring and approved of by Australian environmental regulators. Wet bores around the site.66 disposal into dumps poses the greatest risk to groundwater and surface water, and should be phased out so that coal ash In addition to presenting a contamination risk to groundwater, dumps are dry disposal until the power station eventually surface water and causing fugitive dust, the disposal of coal ash closes and the dump site is rehabilitated. in surface mines can prevent effective rehabilitation of the mine site and is likely to prevent future productive use of the land and underlying aquifer.

Coal ash disposal management 21 Eraring ash dam cells made from ash.

Eraring ash dam expansion – ashes upon ashes

The Eraring power station ash dump, owned by Origin Given the size and nature of the ash dump, the Energy Eraring, is constructed on top of the former Wangi Environmental Assessment for the ash dump expansion power station ash dump, with bunding and internal cells should provide comprehensive detail of how Origin Energy constructed with ash.67 It appears that at least since Eraring plans to rehabilitate and close the ash dump – but 2008 Origin’s approach has been to allow ‘cementitious it doesn’t. Closure and rehabilitation planning is limited to dense phase application’ of ash to operate as a liner,68 an ‘anticipation that the site will be rehabilitated to a point that is, a thick concrete-like crust of coal ash, rather than that will allow further uses, for example industrial and/or constructing an additional liner to act as a barrier between community uses’, and that Origin ‘will rehabilitate the final the ash sludge and the dump floor. All the publicly available footprint of the [ash dump] in a manner generally consistent environmental assessments for the Eraring ash dump, with the surrounding landform’.71 including the current application for its expansion, assume groundwater contamination will occur.69 The inadequate construction of the Eraring ash dump creates significant challenges for pollution control The dump has not been constructed to prevent pollution. following the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the Nor does it appear that Origin Energy Eraring, nor the NSW power station site. Expanding the ash dump compounds EPA or Dams Safety Committee, propose to rectify the lack these already foreseeable and significant rehabilitation of best practice lining for such a toxic facility. challenges. The Eraring ash dump is contaminated land. Without best practice rehabilitation the dump is likely to This demonstrably inadequate approach fails to safeguard continue to be a legacy contaminated land site which has land and groundwater from contamination, and fails serious ongoing risk implications for groundwater, surface to protect community health. However Origin Energy water contamination, future land use planning and ultimately Eraring is applying for an extension of its ash dump by an human health. additional five million cubic metres of toxic waste without including a proposal to line the ash dump in accordance with best practice such as including thick plastic liner or impermeable clay.70

22 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Helen Gregory, Newcastle Herald, 29 March 2019

Community at risk from unstable Eraring ash dump?

The structural integrity of the Eraring ash dump is in question after Origin Energy Eraring stated in March 2019 the dump was a threat to the adjacent Myuna Bay Sports and Recreation Centre - enjoyed by the NSW Central Coast community since 194472 – in the event of an earthquake.73 After receiving an engineering report it commissioned “The community members of Eraring are really highlighting the threat, Origin Energy Eraring contacted the concerned about what the prospect of ash NSW Office of Sport – during the NSW caretaker period dam failure means. If they’ve closed Myuna prior to the state election – and recommended the Sports Bay Sports and Recreation Centre because the and Recreation Centre be closed. To the absolute shock of ash dam might fail, what does this mean for the the Lake Macquarie community, with no consultation and community that lives here? We’ve not received no previous warning that the ash dump was such a risk, the Office of Sport closed the much-loved Centre. any communication from the government or Origin. There’s a responsibility for governments This raises significant questions about why the earthquake to inform communities about these hazards. threat had not already been addressed, how long it had If there is an earthquake and we are deluged been a threat to the community, why the Dams Safety Committee – who oversee the structural integrity and with coal ash, what are the safety measures? Is safety of the Eraring ash dump – hadn’t alerted the public someone going to warn us? There are so many or required Origin Energy Eraring to do so, and why the unanswered questions. We’re just not informed community had no warning that the dump was unsafe in the at all. We’re left to sink or swim. And I don’t first place. want to swim in coal ash” Rather than dictating to the NSW Office of Sport and the local community what they should do, Origin Energy Eraring should be made to remove the toxic ash from the Charmian Eckersley, dump to a purpose-built site that adheres to best practice Eraring resident construction, siting, lining and management thereby removing the threat from the community, and ensure that current dump site is comprehensively rehabilitated.

The NSW Central Coast community should not live with either this toxic threat, nor without its much-loved Sports and Recreation Centre.

Coal ash disposal management 23 24 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Catastrophic coal ash spill Kingston, Tennessee, USA: In 2008, 5.4 million tons of In 2015, the US EPA created national coal ash sludge flooded an area of 300 acres when regulations for coal ash disposal in the a dike suddenly collapsed at the Tennessee Valley Authority Power Station in Harriman, Tennessee.74 The United States – the Hazardous and Solid toxic sludge swept away multiple houses, filled two Waste Management System – Disposal rivers, and destroyed a residential community.75 of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities (the CCR Rule). Prior to Clean-up of the coal ash took years and cost over US$1 the CCR Rule being enforced, ash dump billion. More than 30 clean-up workers died of illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to the toxic ash during management under state regulatory the clean-up, and more than 200 remain ill, ten years programs, supposed to fill other federal after the disaster.76 regulatory gaps, were found to be insufficient by the US EPA to protect In 2018, the sick workers and families of the deceased workers won a lawsuit for liability against the clean-up land, water and communities living contractor who refused to allow the workers to wear near ash dumps. These inefficiencies protective respirators.77 are exemplified by the 2008 Tennessee

Coal ash dam disaster, Tennessee, US, 2018. Source: Dot Griffith Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil photography Station’s coal ash dike collapse.

Coal ash disposal management 25 4

Australian coal ash laws and management

26 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Victoria Coal ash dumps are regulated and managed under the Victoria imposes financial assurances on Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic) (EP Act) with the ash dumps Victorian EPA as the primary regulator.78 Ash dumps are classified as landfill for the purposes of Victoria’s The licences for Hazelwood, Yallourn and AGL Loy Yang all environmental regulatory regime and must be operated in require that a financial assurance be maintained so that if accordance with an EPA-issued licence.79 required, EPA can claim or use the financial assurance or any part of it.85 The purpose of a financial assurance is that the Coal ash dump operators must comply with their licence EPA is assured that there are appropriate funds available in conditions to ensure that discharges of waste from ash the event that a clean-up is required.86 dumps do not escape the boundaries of the premises, do not produce nuisance dust or airborne particles, do not The calculation for financial assurances for ash dumps is contaminate surface water, groundwater or land, and are determined in consultation between the power station monitored in accordance with the EPA’s Landfill Licensing operators and the EPA. Many of the ash dumps in Victoria Guidelines.80 Operators must also ensure that they comply with are located within worked-out sections of the adjacent State Environment Protection Policies for land and water.81 brown coal mines. The EPA has stated that the determination of financial assurances is complicated by the fact that the The EP Act contains general obligations on coal ash dump power station operators are also required to pay a bond for 82 83 operators to not pollute air, surface and groundwater, and mine rehabilitation, and the EPA does not want to ‘double- 84 land. However provided that an operator complies with its dip’ on requiring rehabilitation bonds where these are already licence conditions, the operator cannot be held accountable imposed by the mining regulator. for causing contamination or pollution of the environment. The amount and form of these financial assurances is The EPA can, and does, make allowances for groundwater unknown. The EPA will not release the amounts publicly, contamination caused by coal ash leachate that would claiming that the information is confidential. It is therefore otherwise be a breach of the law. The AGL Loy Yang impossible to determine the adequacy of the financial groundwater contamination, discussed below, is one such assurances held in Victoria. example of the Victorian EPA permitting contamination of groundwater from a coal ash dump. Problems with Victoria’s management of coal ash

Most of the Latrobe Valley power station ash dumps have been constructed inside worked-out sections of the adjacent brown coal mines, or on top of overburden piles. Alinta Loy Yang B power station pipes its ash to a dump site owned and operated by AGL Loy Yang and has no licence conditions regarding ash management.

The EPA has not developed best practice guidance for pollution prevention from ash dumps, but instead considers that the best practice for landfills receiving municipal waste largely applies to preventing coal ash pollution.87 This approach has not mitigated groundwater contamination from Latrobe Valley power station ash dumps. The EPA has taken very little action to require power station operators to clean In February 2015, a rupture in an up ash dumps at the source of contamination or the polluted EnergyAustralia Yallourn ash disposal land and/or water. pipeline led to 8.6 megalitres of ash liquid being dumped into the Morwell River (enough to fill 3.5 Olympic swimming pools)

Best practices for coal ash disposal 27 Loy Yang power stations. Source: Garrett Eckerson.

AGL Loy Yang Power Station coal ash management issues

In 2001 the Victorian EPA issued clean-up notices to protection of beneficial uses is restored.92 Where the source AGL Loy Yang for coal ash leachate contamination of of groundwater pollution cannot be removed, it must be groundwater underneath the coal ash dump. Under these controlled so that the pollution source is contained and/ clean-up notices the EPA designated the contaminated or treated to prevent further migration of the pollution. groundwater a ‘groundwater attenuation zone’.88 This is a The pollution source must be controlled throughout the groundwater contamination plume underneath a premises entire duration that pollution is present and comprehensive for which EPA has determined it cannot prevent impacts on groundwater quality monitoring must be installed to groundwater quality.89 When EPA declares such groundwater demonstrate that beneficial uses of the groundwater remote contamination plumes, the water quality is sacrificed, and the from the source, e.g. at the site boundary, are not impacted.93 intention of the EPA and the operator should be to minimise and control the contaminated groundwater.90 It is not clear from the clean-up notices or AGL Loy Yang’s licence whether there are any control or management The EPA has waived – in other words, abandoned – requirements for the coal ash contamination of groundwater groundwater quality objectives in AGL Loy Yang’s licence to minimise the potential of pollution migration beyond for its groundwater contamination plume for sulfate, the groundwater attenuation zone boundary. AGL Loy aluminium, total dissolved solids and chloride. This Yang recently claimed that in order to address the ongoing means that AGL Loy Yang does not have to comply with groundwater contamination from the ash dumps, all groundwater protection laws for those contaminants. The three Latrobe Valley power stations would need to be EPA has not imposed clean-up obligations on AGL Loy Yang simultaneously shut down for an extended period of time, to rehabilitate the contamination at its source to prevent although it did not give a comprehensive justification for further contamination. that statement.94

The contaminated groundwater plume is identified in There are no existing rehabilitation requirements for the AGL Loy Yang’s licence. The groundwater attenuation zone AGL Loy Yang ash dump. The AGL Loy Yang and Loy Yang perimeter is very large, approximately one-fifth of the B power stations could operate until 2048. This means that entire AGL Loy Yang premises which includes the open-cut unless required by the EPA, neither operator is obliged to brown coal mine and appears larger in perimeter than the undertake rehabilitation of coal ash dumps. The EPA can mine itself. 91 impose rehabilitation obligations for the ash dumps as conditions of licences of operation,95 but it has not done so. The EPA guideline publication The clean-up and management of polluted groundwater states that in all cases polluted groundwater must be cleaned up to the extent practicable, that clean-up and management must address the full extent of groundwater pollution both onsite and offsite, and ongoing management must continue until the

28 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy EnergyBrix / Morwell Power Station. Source: Wikipedia

EnergyBrix/Morwell Power Station coal ash management issues

In 2014 the EnergyBrix power station ceased operations The Latrobe Valley community has the right to guaranteed after its owner went into administration. The power station remediation of the ash dumps consistent with best practice. was mothballed (provisionally but not permanently closed) Power station owners should be require to maintain financial and no remediation of the site was undertaken. In 2017 the assurance well in advance of retiring or well before a EPA issued clean-up notices to EnergyBrix, citing serious company goes into liquidation to ensure this remediation is contamination issues at the site, including the contamination assured and prevent the taxpayer footing the rehabilitation of land and water from the ash landfill, at concentrations bill. that preclude beneficial uses of that soil, sediment and groundwater.96

The current EnergyBrix licence does not require an obligation to provide a financial assurance. The EPA has confirmed to us that there was no ash landfill at the EnergyBrix site and therefore no requirement for the operator to provide a financial assurance.97

The EPA in Victoria has done very little to control groundwater contamination from operational coal ash dumps despite knowledge that the Loy Yang ash dump is contaminating groundwater. The EPA has not required AGL to clean up the source of contamination.

Best practices for coal ash disposal 29 New South Wales In NSW, ash dump operators have primary responsibility for Problems with NSW’s management of coal ash ensuring the safety of their dumps, with the Dams Safety Committee and NSW EPA having statutory responsibilities Conditions in the EPLs are inconsistent, including the extent to enforce, respectively, dump safety requirements and and number of groundwater monitoring bores for each pollution law. Coal ash dumps are regulated under the Dams dump, ambient air quality monitoring at dump sites, and what Safety Act 1978 (DS Act), and Protection of the Environment materials can be used to cap and rehabilitate ash dumps. Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act). The Vales Point EPL has conditions for both air and water monitoring points specific to the ash dump, and the Eraring Dams safety legislation and Dams Safety EPL has conditions for water monitoring points around its ash dump, however it is not clear in the Bayswater, Liddell and Committee Mount Piper EPLs where air and/or water monitoring points Under the DS Act, the Dam Safety Committee has primary are in relation to these ash dumps. responsibility to ensure the safety of dumps identified in the DS Act (called ‘prescribed dams’),98 which include the Both Eraring and Vales Point power station ash dumps can Eraring, Vales Point, Bayswater and Liddell ash dumps.99 receive waste materials generated at the premises other than The Dams Safety Committee fulfils a range of powers coal ash waste, but it is not clear from the Vales Point EPL and functions to ensure the safety of prescribed dumps, what materials can be used to cap the dump. The size of the including take-over powers during emergencies and powers Vales Point ash dump and its proximity to communities and to require operators to take actions to make a prescribed Lake Macquarie warrants full transparency regarding what can dam safe,100 and imposes reporting requirements on be used to cap the dump. As discussed below, this lack of operators. The Dams Safety Committee has prepared transparency has resulted in asbestos being found in capping several guidelines, including a guideline for tailings dams. material brought in by a contractor without the community Power station ash dumps are considered tailings dams for being aware. the Dams Safety Committee’s purposes. Although both the EPA and the Dams Safety Committee Under Dams Safety Committee guidelines, power station impose monitoring and reporting obligations on ash dump ash dump operators are required to provide a five-yearly operators (where the ash dumps are prescribed dams for the surveillance report and an annual inspection report.101 These purpose of the DS Act), much of this information is not publicly reports are not publicly available. The NSW Central Coast available. Unlike in Victoria where the EPA has oversight of ash community has no way, without engaging in lengthy Freedom dumps and environmental audits for these sites are publicly of Information procedures, to scrutinise when stability of the available, in NSW the responsibility for pollution and dump Eraring ash dump described above first became a threat to integrity is spread over two government agencies. Community the safety of patrons of the Myuna Bay Sports and Recreation members and other interested parties have very little access Centre. This information should be publicly available. to information without having to request documents through the Freedom of Information process. NSW pollution law Moreover it is unclear if, and how, these two authorities Under the POEO Act, the NSW EPA has statutory work together to ensure that ash dumps are safe and that responsibility for surface water, groundwater, and air pollution risks are mitigated. If the dump is constructed pollution from coal ash dumps. Under the POEO Act and lined in accordance with best practice, then pollution licencing scheme, the EPA issues Environment Protection risks are mitigated. However a recent EPA audit of ash dump Licences (EPLs) to power station operators, which contain compliance makes very little mention of the Dams Safety conditions relating to the ash dumps for environmental Committee and does not mention any cooperation between monitoring, ash dump capping and rehabilitation materials, the two authorities.103 If the regulation of ash dumps is spread what materials can be dumped into the ash dumps, and over two government authorities then the community has where required, pollution reduction programs to determine a right to expect that these authorities are working closely better management of ash waste. together to ensure the dumps pose no environmental or human health risk and that communities are protected Under the POEO Act, a licensee must prepare pollution against potential dump collapse. incident response management plans for all activities their licence relates to,102 including for ash dumps. Some, but not all, of the EPLs have water and ambient air monitoring conditions for ash dumps.

30 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Lack of financial assurances

The POEO Act empowers the NSW EPA to impose a financial assurance on an EPL to ensure enough funds are available for carrying out works or programs that are required under a licence, such as a rehabilitation plan.104

Despite the size and toxicity of the ash dumps in NSW, the NSW EPA has not imposed an EPL condition that ash dump operators maintain a financial assurance. Given the legacy issues and the complexities likely to arise during the decommissioning and rehabilitation process, NSW power station operators should be required to provide financial assurance. This would protect the NSW taxpayer from bearing the costs associated with rehabilitation and management and provide certainty with respect to the dump’s rehabilitation.

“They took out fish nurseries when they built these ash dams so they have affected the ecology of the lake. What you see is utter devastation. Coal ash is dead – that's the truth. It covers a huge area – kilometres – and continues to expand because we continue to have a coal- fired power station. That has really affected my life here in that sense because I know that environmental devastation is on my doorstep. And it also has an effect because we want to know that that is safe for our health.”

Sue Wynn, Mannering Park Progress Association, NSW

Best practices for coal ash disposal 31 Vales Point power station. Source: Nicola Rivers

The toxic waste inside a NSW ash dam

Ash dumps in NSW contain more than toxic ash from the coal-combustion process. The EPLs for the power stations state what additional materials the ash dumps can receive. The Eraring ash dump is licenced to receive additional “The EPA have been contacted on many wastes generated at the power station, including fabric filter occasions. The best case scenario when they bags used to capture air pollutants, boiler chemical cleaning find the licences have been breached is a residues, coal conveyor wash-down, and mine dewatering from Awaba State mine. The Vales Point ash dump can $15,000 fine. That is not solving the problem. receive additional wastes including residual detergents and The problem is that these dams are here for oil sheens, coal mine dewatering, dirty water drains, soil eternity until the government or the perpetrators contaminated with oil and chemicals, fabric bag filters and actually start remediating the site. It's no good chemical cleaning solutions. The Mount Piper ash dump can just capping it with clean fill which recently the receive wastes including fabric bag filters, chemical clean contractor for the government was found to be solution and cooling tower sediments. Both the Liddell and Bayswater EPLs list wastes that the power stations can mixing asbestos with. So not only are we creating dispose of, but it is not clear from the EPLs where this waste all this fly ash, we’re contaminating that fly ash.” is disposed of. The EPA can approve other materials to be disposed of in these ash dumps. However these approvals are not publicly available and it is unknown what these materials are. Gary Blaschke, OAM, Local resident and President In late 2018, a company contracted by Vales Point power of Disabled Surfers' Association station to rehabilitate a section of the ash dump was found Australia. to have been dumping asbestos, domestic waste and other materials not approved by the EPA.105 Delta Electricity, the operator of power station, reported this breach to the EPA, who subsequently charged Delta a $550 administration. fee for issuing a clean-up notice, and ordered them to undertake a risk assessment.

32 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Vales Point ash dump from above, NSW Central Coast. Source: supplied

Vales Point and Liddell power station coal ash management issues

Vales Point power station is owned by Sunset Power for any use. At time of writing, the Central Coast Council International Pty Ltd. Like Eraring power station, it is currently considering a plan for future development located on the NSW Central Coast in close proximity to immediately to the east of the Vales Point ash dump. The communities and Lake Macquarie.106 The Vales Point ash Draft Greater Munmorah Structure Plan describes plans for dump covers some 400 hectares of land that straddles the residential, recreational and industrial developments in the jurisdictions of the Central Coast and Lake Macquarie area,108 including housing for an additional 5000 residents. local government areas. However the Plan fails to list the Vales Point ash dump as a toxic hazard that might constrain development or require As outlined above, the Vales Point ash dump contains a Council’s ongoing attention. mixture of ash and several other toxins including bag filters and asbestos. Liddell power station is owned by AGL Macquarie.109 In 2017, the NSW EPA issued an Official Caution to Liddell for Despite this, in 2018 the NSW Department of Planning and unacceptable fugitive dust emissions from its ash dump Environment granted development consent to Sunset Power which is a contravention of management conditions in its to build an up-to 55MW solar power station on 80 hectares of EPL regarding ash dump management. In 2018 the NSW EPA 107 rehabilitated ash dump. The degree to which Sunset Power issued a penalty notice to Liddell for an ash slurry overflow. will rehabilitate the site to mitigate long-term environmental impacts is unknown. The Environment Assessment for the In March 2017 the NSW EPA conducted a compliance report solar project contains very little information about the into the coal ash dumps for the Liddell power station.110 The rehabilitation of the site before the solar panels are installed. report found instances of non-compliances at the site, The site has been filled and capped, however the potential including seepages from dump walls not being managed to for the toxic waste to leach through the ground and into water prevent surface water pollution, not operating the Liddell tables has not been addressed. ash dump in a proper and efficient manner, and dump water levels not being managed appropriately to minimise This situation does not meet community expectations or prevent discharges from the dump.111 The audit requires of its regulators. Before the ash dump is repurposed as Liddell to take actions to remedy these non-compliances, a solar farm it must be comprehensively rehabilitated to including the preparation of pollution reduction programs. best practice standards, and a strict on-going monitoring and maintenance system must be implemented. Thorough remediation of land to best practice standards should be mandatory before any ash dump site is repurposed

Best practices for coal ash disposal 33 Queensland Queensland produces 5.5 million tonnes of coal ash per publicly available, making it impossible to determine how year.112 Coal ash is by far the biggest single type of waste these dumps are managed and whether the power stations produced in Queensland, double that of the next highest, are required to prepare rehabilitation and closure plans. which is organic waste.113 In Queensland, as in other states, coal ash operations are managed through an environmental The Gladstone power station and its ash dumps, both licensing scheme. The Queensland Environmental Protection operational and rehabilitated, are located within a flood Regulation 2008 (EP Regulation) defines fly ash, but not zone.120 The Ash Management Plan for the power station bottom ash, as a ‘regulated waste.’114 is not publicly available. It is unclear what measures are implemented to ensure the surrounding waterways are Coal ash disposal requires a licence or ‘environmental protected from contamination during flooding events. Nor is authority’ (EA) from the Department of Environment and it clear what mitigation measures are implemented to prevent 115 Science. The management requirements for fly ash are set ash dump contaminants seeping into the Calliope River and out in each power station’s respective EA, and the holder surrounding estuaries. The Calliope River flows into the Coral must comply with their obligations under the Environmental Sea towards the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef. Protection Act 1994 such as taking all reasonable and practicable steps to prevent and/or minimise the chance of The Tarong and Tarong North Power Station EAs contain the an environmental harm occurring,116 and must comply with the 117 most extensive conditions relating to specifications of the duty to notify in the occurrence of an environmental harm. ash dumps, implementation of an Ash Dam Management Queensland has Model Operating Conditions for ERA section Plan, ash handling, monitoring, decommissioning and 60 – waste disposal which apply to coal ash dumps and rehabilitation.121 Comparatively the Callide Power Station’s include conditions for rehabilitation.118 These rehabilitation EA contains significantly fewer ash management and storage obligations include a requirement that the water quality obligations. No conditions exist regarding monitoring of the does not cause environmental harm, that an environmental prescribed ash dumps or future rehabilitation. The conditions nuisance caused by dust is minimised (not prevented), detailed in the Kogan Creek Power Station EA are similarly that the final landform is stable and protects public safety, sparse regarding ash management, however this is because and that contamination concentrations under the final the power station itself doesn’t dispose of the ash by- capping layer are in accordance with National Environmental product. It is transported back to the mine site for disposal.122 Protection (Assessment of Soil Contamination) Measure Yet the relevant EA for the Kogan Creek Mine only authorises 1999.119 These conditions do not include explicit monitoring one environmental-relevant activity which is the mining obligations, public access to information, public engagement of black coal.123 The EA itself makes no allowance for the and consultation in rehabilitation plans, or a requirement that disposal of ash produced by the power station. sources of contamination are thoroughly cleaned up. The lack of information in the public domain regarding Under their EAs, the Gladstone, Stanwell, Tarong and Tarong Queensland’s ash dumps prevents independent scrutiny of North power stations are all required to prepare Ash how ash dumps are regulated and managed. The only way Management Plans. The EAs for Millmerran, Callide or Kogan communities can access this information is through the Creek do not contain conditions for the preparation of Ash Right to Information process which can be a prohibitively Management Plans. These Ash Management Plans are not expensive and lengthy process.

34 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Mat Collins, South Bay Burnett Times, 21 November 2018 .

Coal ash from Tarong power stations ends up in Brisbane suburb

In 2016 it was discovered that 1,400 tonnes of coal ash was After asking the Department of Environment and Science being illegally stored in an industrial warehouse in Gympie what happened to the coal ash dumped in these sheds, we and in the Brisbane suburb of Pinkenba, next to a residential were informed that we had to lodge a Right To Information area. This coal ash was from the Tarong and Tarong North request. At time of writing the fate of this ash – whether it Power Stations operated by Stanwell Corporation. It had was removed, by who, and where to, if it was removed at all, been stored there by Coal ReUse, which had the exclusive and at what cost to the Queensland taxpayer – is unknown. rights to resell coal ash produced at these power stations. In July 2016 it was reported that Coal ReUse was facing up to $7 million in fines for these activities.124 Stanwell Corporation denied any knowledge of, and liability for, the alleged breach by its contractor.125

Initially the Queensland Department of Environment and Science determined that Coal ReUse was storing regulated waste without approval. However a subsequent investigation by the Department concluded that they had no power to enforce against Coal ReUse as storage of coal ash in this way did not breach the approvals given to them by the Department, and they could not force the operator to remove the coal ash. The Department subsequently dropped its pursuit of the contractor.126 Coal ReUse later Queensland produces 5.5 million tonnes went into receivership. of coal ash per year. Coal ash is by far the biggest single type of waste produced in Queensland, double that of the next highest, which is organic waste.

Best practices for coal ash disposal 35 Western Australia Western Australia also uses a licensing scheme for coal ash The report also shows that a groundwater monitoring report operations. The licences for the WA ash dumps are issued by has not been undertaken since 2006, but that there is a saline, the Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DER). i.e. salty, groundwater plume underneath Perron Quarry.130 Ash dumps that are known contaminated sites, such as Perron Despite this, investigations into monitoring and management Quarry where the ash from Kwinana power station is dumped, of the groundwater plume do not meet DER guidelines for are registered on the DER’s contaminated sites database.127 contaminated sites.131

Each power station licence has conditions pertaining to ash Ash from Bluewaters power station is mixed with overburden dumps, ash dump monitoring and infrastructure requirements. and dumped above the water table in the Ewington mine, not Each ash dump requires an Ash Dam Environmental in a lined, purpose built site.132 There is no information on the Management Plan, however, the Ash Dam Management Plans contaminated sites database about water contamination at are not publicly available. DER has confirmed to us that it does the site. not require a rehabilitation or closure plan for ash dumps because the current licences are for operational premises.128 In its last Annual Audit Compliance Report Form, Muja power station reported that it had not complied with its licence There are inconsistencies between the licences for ash because it could not locate the documentary evidence for dumps in WA, including discrepancies in construction and the ash dump inspections.133 Muja is obligated to undertake lining requirements to protect groundwater and land from inspection reports under its Ash Dam Environmental contamination. For example, one of the Collie power station Management Plan. It is unknown how DER responded to this ash dumps must be lined with a low permeability clay non-compliance, and whether any enforcement action was whereas only one of the Muja ash dumps must be lined with undertaken. This information is important to determine the both clay and an impermeable plastic liner that has a leak incidence, or risk level, to ground and surface waters and detection system. the community’s right to know how the power station is complying with the law. Neither the licence for Ewington Mine that takes Bluewaters’ ash nor that for Perron Quarry ash dam which took Kwinana It appears that Muja power station has had issues with ash power station’s ash contains conditions for infrastructure dump seepage. In 2016 the power station was required to requirements – that is, siting location, construction and undertake an ash dump seepage improvement plan that lining of the dumps – although this may be addressed in the included an assessment of the extent of a seepage plume respective Ash Management Environmental Plans. These resulting from ash dump leachate, remedial measure to be Plans, however, are not publicly available. undertaken, and an engineer’s assessment of the permeability of the ash dump.134 Perron Quarry is identified as a contaminated site under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 and listed in the contaminated sites database. DER has confirmed that the ash dump is unlined. Reports produced from the database show that the former limestone quarry has had ash dumped in it since the 1980s; that barium, manganese and unidentified heavy metals are present in the ash at concentrations exceeding safe soil levels; that these toxins are potentially leaching into the groundwater; and the groundwater underneath the ash dump is unsuitable for potable and non-potable purposes including irrigation.129

In its last Annual Audit Compliance Report Form, Muja power station reported that it had not complied with its licence because it could not locate the documentary evidence for the ash dump inspections. Muja is obligated to undertake inspection reports under its Ash Dam Environmental Management Plan. It is unknown how DER responded to this non- compliance, and whether any enforcement was undertaken.

Munmorah power station. Source: James Whelan.

36 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Best practices for coal ash disposal 37 5

Coal ash reuse – is it safe?

38 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy According to the Ash Development Association of Australia, coal ash is reused in Australia for a range of products including asphalt, cement manufacture, concrete manufacture, road and embankment construction applications, and carpet manufacture.135

The least harmful fate of coal ash is ‘encapsulation’, where Coal ash reuse regulation in Australia coal ash is incorporated into a solid substrate such as concrete, bricks and tiles. Such reuse is much safer than The regulation of coal ash reuse in Australia generally falls under other reuses because the potential for leaching of toxic waste resource management laws. However the regulations vary chemicals to water or the re-emission of particulates to air is in each state. Even where Notices or Orders of Compliance are greatly reduced.136 The primary encapsulated reuses of coal in force for the use of coal ash, these orders have little regulator ash in Australia are concrete and bricks. However industry oversight and are largely industry self-regulated. proponents advocate for the use of this toxic material in agricultural products – about 1.8 million tonnes from over 10 In NSW the Coal Ash Order 2014 applies to anyone who 137 million produced annually. generates, processes or recovers supplies of coal ash.140 Generators of coal ash must undertake sampling and testing The ability of ash to be used depends entirely on its heavy of the coal ash before supplying it to ensure that heavy metal metal content. As outlined above, fly ash is the most toxic of and other contaminants are within the range specified in the ash generated by burning coal. Moreover, many ash dumps Order.141 A generator of coal ash must provide a supplier with are licenced to accept other toxic wastes such as fabric bag written statements certifying that compliance with the Order filters, boiler cleaning chemicals, acid solutions and solid has been achieved, and copies of both the Order and Coal Ash acids, and asbestos. Exemption 2014 (or links to them) either at or before the time at 142 Most of Australia’s power stations on-sell coal ash, but the which the generator supplies coal ash. Although generators rates of use in comparison to how much is generated is and suppliers of coal ash must maintain records of testing and very small.138 report to the NSW EPA if it discovers it is non-compliant with the Order,143 this process is largely self-regulated. As discussed below, it can lead to oversights with potentially serious Encapsulated reuse in concrete, bricks environmental and health impacts. and tiles In January 2019, AGL Macquarie announced to the Australian Certain types of fly ash can be used as a partial substitute Stock Exchange that the coal ash it generates from its Bayswater for Portland cement in concrete. Fly ash can improve the and Liddell power stations was suspended from sale after performance of concrete, including increasing its durability the company discovered the heavy metal content of the ash and strength. Reduction in the production of Portland cement exceeded the levels set by the EPA in the Coal Ash Order.144 also conserves resources and avoids adverse impacts from These heavy metals included chromium, cadmium and copper. cement production, including mercury and greenhouse gas An AGL spokesperson told us that these exceedances may emissions. The US EPA evaluated the use of fly ash in concrete have been occurring since the company bought the power and determined that it does not pose greater health or stations in 2014, demonstrating an alarming gap in the testing and environmental hazards than the use of Portland cement.139 reporting process from generator to third-party.

Coal ash used as fill At time of writing it is understood that the EPA is investigating Coal ash is produced in very large quantities and is expensive the matter, but has not taken any enforcement action. To to dispose of properly, and therefore many coal-fired power date there has not been a public announcement from AGL station owners dispose of the ash as fill in low-lying area, Macquarie or the NSW EPA as to which products contain this quarries, road beds and construction projects. Kwinana power ash, however an AGL spokesperson told us that the coal ash station, for example, dumps its ash at Perron Quarry, while was sold to a range of companies for purposes that included Bluewaters, Yallourn, Kogan Creek, Mount Piper and Redbank agricultural products such as potting mixes. power stations dump their ash into nearby mines. In Queensland, the Coal Combustion Products Notice outlines This so-called ‘reuse’ of coal ash can be very dangerous if ash what coal ash can be reused for, and the limits on heavy metals is placed in areas of shallow groundwater, near surface waters, and other toxins.145 The ash can be used for a range of products or allowed to sit uncovered where it can be dispersed by wind. including cement and concrete products, asphalt, paints, road Large coal ash fill projects present the same dangers to health pavement, and a soil conditioned for agricultural purposes. It and the environment as unlined dumps, polluting groundwater. also imposes an obligation on generators, suppliers and users These fills can be even more dangerous than ash dumps, as of coal ash to write to the Chief Executive of the Department of nearby residents may not be aware of the placement of the Environment and Heritage Protection with details including of ash, and no safeguards, such as monitoring or impermeable the intended use of the ash within 10 days of supplying and using liners, are used. the ash.146

There are no coal ash reuse regulations for Western Australia or Victoria.

Best practices for coal ash disposal 39 6

Best practices for coal ash disposal

40 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Because of its toxicity, coal ash cannot be disposed of safely and poses a significant contamination risk to the environment and communities. The best way to prevent this risk is to stop producing coal ash. In the meantime, coal ash dumps must be carefully and strictly managed, rehabilitated and monitored to minimise the harm these toxic sites pose to human and environmental health.

Australia’s ash dump regulations fail to prevent groundwater Australia urgently needs uniform, enforceable, community- contamination, surface water contamination, pipeline spills, accessible best practice guidelines for managing, toxic dust emissions, and poisoning aquatic life. As one of the rehabilitating, closing and on-going closure monitoring and largest, if not the largest, industrial waste stream in Australia, maintenance of ash dumps. These guidelines must eradicate a national approach to construction, management and inconsistency in ash dump construction, management, rehabilitation of ash dumps is urgently needed. operation and rehabilitation, and require the clean-up of contaminated groundwater and surface water. A national No state in Australia has prepared best practice guidelines approach to the rehabilitation and management of ash for ash dump construction, management, rehabilitation, dumps is fundamental to the ability of communities to use closure, and post-closure management. The closest is the the natural resources around them, to safely plan for future Australian National Committee On Large Dams (ANCOLD) land use, and to feel confident that companies have been 147 guide to tailings dams, but because Ash Management Plans required to comply with stringent and enforceable laws to – where these exist – are not publicly available it is unknown avoid a looming toxic contamination legacy. if the ANCOLD guidelines are uniformly applied throughout Australia for coal ash dumps. These guidelines have not In 2015, the US EPA created the first national regulations been updated since 2012 and are not easily accessible to the for coal ash disposal in the United States – the Hazardous public, currently costing $195 to access.148 and Solid Waste Management System – Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities (the CCR Rule).153 In Victoria, power station licences require coal ash dumps In the CCR Rule, coal-combustion residuals include fly ash, to be audited by an environmental auditor every two years. bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas desulfurisation sludge.154 These audit reports make recommendations on how management of the dumps can be improved to comply with Prior to the CCR Rule being enforced, ash dump management licence conditions. Copies of these reports are given to the under state regulatory programs, supposed to fill other Victorian EPA, however the EPA only investigates further federal regulatory gaps, were found to be insufficient by the if it is not satisfied with an audit report. As noted above, US EPA to protect land, water and communities living near consecutive audit reports for Yallourn identify an absence ash dumps. These inefficiencies are exemplified by the 2008 of thorough groundwater contamination detection, 149 even Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil Station’s coal though the power station is obliged in its licence to maintain ash dike collapse, outlined above. a monitoring system to allow the EPA and the power station to detect changes in environmental conditions.150 The CCR Rule provides a good starting model for Australia to prevent water and air contamination but contains gaps that In Queensland, Western Australia, and New South Wales, must be closed to achieve ultimate protection of human and reports must be submitted to various regulatory authorities environmental health and to ensure that industry pays the full on the state of the ash dumps151 and on structural integrity.152 cost of safe management and disposal of toxic coal ash. However it is unclear whether the regulators themselves conduct an investigation of the ash dumps and this The CCR Rule was designed for new ash dumps or ash dump information is not publicly available. expansions. Cleaning up existing contamination is critical to protecting water sources, and preventing air pollution. Poorly sited and constructed ash dumps in Australia, including Eraring, Vales Point, Yallourn, and Loy Yang should be re-sited and reconstructed to best practice standards, so that the former sites can be thoroughly remediated and all contamination is cleaned-up.

Best practices for coal ash disposal 41 The safest method of ash disposal is dry disposal in a properly sited, engineered landfill with the safeguards (liner, leachate collection for precipitation, monitoring wells) described in the below National Best Practice Guidelines and engineering standards. Where one State’s regulatory approach is weaker, an environmental injustice exists for the communities that live near ash dumps or downstream from contaminated water.

The following National Best Practice Guidelines generally align with the US EPA’s CCR Rule and must be implemented in Australia. Some of these measures are already required in individual Australian State laws and regulation, however the lack of a national approach means that ash dump management is inadequate and inconsistent.

These guidelines and engineering standards can be used as a checklist for communities in a number of instances, including:

• when licence conditions for ash dumps are being assessed or reviewed and community submissions are open; • when assessing the detail of regulatory compliance reports of ash dump operators; • when assessing Annual Performance Statements for licence compliance; • when assessing the adequacy of enforcement orders issued by regulators that impose clean-up obligations of ash dump pollution or penalty infringements for licence non-compliance; • if a new ash dump is proposed; and • when planning decisions are made to repurpose the land on which an ash dump or former ash dump is located.

The Guidelines can also be an advocacy tool to demand best practice treatment of coal ash dumps to protect community and environmental health.

Australia’s ash dump regulations fail to prevent groundwater contamination, surface water contamination, pipeline spills, toxic dust emissions, and poisoning aquatic life. As one of the largest, if not the largest, industrial waste stream in Australia, a national approach to construction, management and rehabilitation of ash dumps is urgently needed.

42 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy National Best Practice Guidelines and engineering standards

Although coal ash dumps can never truly be made safe, and will create an ongoing toxic legacy, these Guidelines are key to reducing the environmental and human health risks from coal ash dumps in Australia.

National Best Practice Guidelines and engineering standards

1. Keep ash dry. 2. Build ash dumps away from all water sources and known subsidence and/or seismic zones. 3. Line all ash dumps, including operational dumps, with impermeable materials. 4. Impose strict structural integrity requirements. 5. Impose detailed, strict and enforceable operating criteria in licences. 6. Mandate compressive groundwater monitoring systems and impose contamination remediation where it is occurring. 7. Prepare comprehensive closure and post-closure plans. 8. Ensure transparency of information.

Best practices for coal ash disposal 43 1. Keep ash dry. is necessary to prevent the leachate from entering groundwater. The leachate collection system consists of The key to safe disposal of coal ash is to keep ash dry gravel or some other porous medium, which is designed to and prevent the release of toxic contaminants to water. allow leachate to flow rapidly to the top of the HDPE liner. Handling of dry coal ash requires the control of fugitive Leachate collection systems can only be installed in dry dust, but control mechanisms exist to minimise dispersal, dump sites. This is another reason why ash disposal in dry including regular spraying of ash with water and covering dumps is far safer than disposal in wet coal ash dumps. it with dirt. It is critical that ash is kept dry long after the closure of the dump. 4. Impose strict structural integrity requirements. Capping of ash is often proposed as a method to prevent precipitation from infiltrating into the ash in dump This applies to new and existing ash dumps, and lateral rehabilitation and closure plans. Infiltration of precipitation expansions, to prevent damages associated with structural is just one way that water can enter the ash. Wherever the failures. Owners and operators are required to regularly bottom of the dump is located below normal groundwater conduct a number of structural integrity-related assessments elevation, groundwater will continue to flow through the ash and make these reports publicly available. and generate leachate causing adverse impacts on water quality. Even where the bottom of the ash dump is located The following design standards applicable to coal ash dumps above normal groundwater elevation, high water events will increase their safety, but there is no substitute for the (associated with high water in the river) can cause ash to elimination of wet disposal of coal ash entirely and the be re-wetted. Coal ash dumps should not be placed above conversion to dry methods of disposal in engineered landfills. ‘uppermost aquifers’ or in wetlands. Engineering Safeguards 2. Build ash dumps away from known A dump operator must demonstrate that the dump meets subsidence and/or seismic zones. detailed structural stability standards and hydrologic and To ensure there is no probability of adverse effects on hydraulic capacity requirements. Coal ash dumps that fail any human or environmental health from ash waste, coal ash one of these structural standards must undergo immediate dumps , within fault areas, in seismic impact zones, and in remediation and close. unstable areas. Inspections and Monitoring of Ash Ponds

3. Line all ash dumps, including operational Dump operators must conduct annual structural stability dumps, with impermeable materials. assessments by a qualified professional engineer to document whether the design, construction, operation, and Best practice guidelines should provide requirements maintenance of the dump is consistent with recognised for new ash dumps and impose a mandate that existing and best practice engineering methods for the maximum dumps must retrofit or close if they were not built with a volume of fly ash and water that is dumped.158 Such annual composite (or alternative) liner and where concentrations of inspections should be made publicly available and submitted contaminates are ‘statistically above’ groundwater protection to government regulators. If any deficiencies are discovered, standards established in Australian regulations. they should be documented in detail and immediately resolved. Proof of remedial actions should be publicly Any newly constructed ash dump should include, at available and submitted to the regulatory authority. minimum, a composite liner comprising an upper component consisting of a 30mm geomembrane liner (GM), directly Since coal ash is an inherently unstable material, dumps must placed on top of a lower component consisting of at least be visually inspected weekly by a qualified person for any 60 centimetres of compacted soil or clay with a hydraulic appearances of actual or potential structural weakness and -7 conductivity of no more than 1 X 10 centimeters per second other conditions which potentially disrupt the operation or 155 (cm/sec). Failure to establish complete and intimate safety of the dump (for example, signs of structural weakness contact between a high density polyethylene (HDPE plastic) or distress).159 Weekly dump inspections are necessary to liner and underlying clay will cause the composite liner to uncover any appearances of actual or potential structural fail and result in leaks. A more protective liner system than weakness and other conditions that are disrupting or have the composite liner described above is a double liner that the potential to disrupt the operation or safety of structure, consists of either two single liners, two composite liners, or and all instrumentation installed on the dump should be 156 a single and a composite liner. Double-liner systems are monitored at least monthly for evidence of movement or used in all hazardous waste landfills in the United States and instability. The dump owner must prepare annual inspections should be mandatory in Australia. performed by a qualified professional engineer to ensure that the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the All liners (both double and composite) will eventually leak unit is consistent with recognised and generally accepted due to deterioration that causes cracks and holes, and rips best practice engineering standards. caused by faulty liner installation and/or waste deposition.157 For that reason, a leachate collection and removal system

44 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy All inspections should be publicly available for examination, • Statistical tests to compare one well to another unpolluted preferably by posting on a publicly accessible internet site; well (inter-well comparison). Benchmarks in an inter-well be submitted to a government agency; and clearly document test are representative values from unpolluted (background all deficiencies found. The owner/operators should similarly or upgradient) wells. Downgradient concentrations be required to remediate all deficiencies and post evidence above these benchmarks will indicate that a pollutant is of all corrective action after completion. elevated due to the release of coal ash leachate and that increased monitoring, and perhaps corrective measures, Fugitive Dust Control are necessary.

To reduce risks of exposure to fugitive dust emissions, The purpose of requiring groundwater monitoring at the owners of ash dumps must adopt measures that effectively boundary of the ash dump is to prevent the off-site migration 160 minimise fly ash from becoming airborne. Ambient air of toxic contaminants from the coal ash. It is imperative monitoring and dust detection monitors must be placed that clean-up or corrective action be mandated when around ash dumps, and all monitoring data must be downgradient monitoring wells indicate that groundwater publicly available. pollution is occurring.162 In general, an adequate corrective action program includes: 5. Impose detailed, strict and enforceable operating criteria in licences. • immediately notifying to regulatory authorities and the public about the contaminations; Licences must include compressive operating criteria for air, • determining remedial action to restore groundwater or run-on and run-off controls for ash dumps, hydrologic and surface water to pre-release condition; hydraulic capacity requirements for surface impoundments, and assessment requirements. • engaging the surrounding community, including on the development of regulatory approval of the clean-up plan; 6. Mandate comprehensive groundwater • completing the clean-up within a strict time period; and monitoring systems and impose contamination • obtaining determination by regulatory officials and a remediation where it is occurring. qualified professional engineer that the clean-up is thorough and complete. Ash dump operators must be required to implement a comprehensive groundwater monitoring network, including 7. Prepare comprehensive closure and post- sufficient well locations, monitoring frequency, pollutants closure plans. to be measured, benchmark values, and statistical analyses that will be used to interpret future data.161 The following All ash dumps should close in accordance with specified considerations must be taken into account when designing standards and operators should monitor and maintain groundwater monitoring systems: the facilities for a period of time after closure. These requirements are essential to ensure the long-term safety of • Characterisation of groundwater around the dump. There closed ash dumps. The standards should include timeframes is rarely a single ‘downgradient’ direction, and groundwater to initiate and complete closure requirements and the flow can change over time, so it is important to capture as preparation of closure and post-closure care plans. See much of the area as possible. The monitoring wells should section 8, Closure/post-closure of coal ash dumps, below. be located at the waste unit boundary to ensure that contamination leaving the disposal unit is detected at the 8. Ensure transparency of information. earliest possible time. • Quarterly well monitoring to capture seasonal groundwater Regulators and operators should maintain a publicly quality changes, and provisions for increased monitoring accessible website for information about ash dumps. All when contamination appears. documents should be publicly available, preferably on a publicly accessible website, including: • Measured pollutants to include the following coal ash indicators: boron, calcium, chloride, fluoride, pH, sulfate, • monitoring data; total dissolved solids, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, • reports used to develop the plan; cadmium, chromium, cobalt, fluoride, lead, lithium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, thallium, • the final plan; and radium 226 and 228 combined. Pollutants known to be • communications between ash dump operator and elevated in the dump or in local groundwater should be regulators overseeing the rehabilitation and closure plan; measured routinely. • any penalty infringement notices or court orders issued for • Identification of benchmark values above which non-compliance; and concentration of pollutants is considered too high. Each • all community update reports. contaminant should contain two benchmark values – a health-based value and a statistical value (see below). Concentrations above the health-based value will indicate that water is unsafe to drink and must require corrective action to restore the groundwater to safe water quality levels.

Best practices for coal ash disposal 45 Unplanned closure of Flinders power station ash dump risks lives

In May 2016 the Northern power station in Port Augusta, For several days people in Port Augusta reported breathing South Australia closed. Very little notice was given by the difficulties, coughing, and significant increases in asthma power station owner, Alinta. No closure and post-closure incidents including the hospitalisation of children with rehabilitation plans were either required or in place when asthma. Pharmacies ran out of asthma medication.168 The the power station powered down for the last time. Port South Australian EPA issued a $2,200 fine to Flinders Power Augusta Council has referred to the remediation of Northern for not taking adequate steps to prevent the dust escaping.169 Power Station as a case study of what not to do.163 The South Australian EPA did not approve the Flinders The ash dump at the Northern Power station is 270 hectares. power station ash dump rehabilitation plan until March 2017, Port Augusta is known for its strong wind. The predominant nearly 12 months after closure. Although the ash dump has method of dust control ceased following the closure of been covered and sown with grass seeds, the dust events the power station, and the ash dried, posing an immediate haven’t stopped, with the most recent occurring in January threat to the environment and nearby residents.164 2019.170 Alinta CEO Jeff Dimery has stated that the cost of remediation of the Flinders power station is in between Port August Council first reported dust emissions from $200 and $300 million.’171 the ash dump site to the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (South Australian EPA) in July 2016.165 In ‘It is a sad indictment indeed that governments and October 2016, five months after the power station shut, corporations can so easily turn their backs and leave one the power station closure plan was approved by the South community to bear the legacy and impacts, potentially for Australian EPA. The post-closure and dust management generations yet to come.’172 plans for the power station were approved in November 2016, nearly six months after closure.166 The problems with remediation of the Flinders power station highlight the urgent need for a national approach Once the post-closure plans were approved, Flinders Power to ash dump management and closure. Without adequate used an aerial application of chemical dust suppressions, closure plans prepared well before the closure of power which are supposed to retain a surface seal for 12 months. stations, communities living close to power stations The power station assured the Port Augusta community that will be in danger of being exposed to toxic coal ash and it would closely monitor weather forecasts for high winds or polluted waterways. severe weather events to ensure the capping agent was not compromised and to minimise adverse impacts to human and environmental health.167

In late December 2016, Port Augusta experienced severe storms that dumped some 60mm of rain on the ash dump. This severely compromised the chemical dust suppressant which thinned and dried up, removing the suppressant’s ability to contain the underlying ash.

In early January 2017, strong winds carried a thick plume of ash dust to nearby residents at Port Augusta. Despite these weather events being forecast, and despite assurances made to the community that it would protect their health, Flinders Power appeared unprepared for the events. No dust suppressant or means for aerial re-application were on standby and no warning was given to the community to prepare for potentially hazardous conditions.

‘It is a sad indictment indeed that governments and corporations can so easily turn their backs and leave one community to bear the legacy and impacts, potentially for generations yet to come.’

Port Augusta ash dam, South Australia. Source: Ella Colley

46 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Best practices for coal ash disposal 47 7

Closure/post-closure of coal ash dumps

48 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Coal ash dumps must be comprehensively rehabilitated and require on-going management to protect surrounding communities well into the future. Protecting water sources is an absolute priority. It is vital that contaminated groundwater and land is cleaned up so that communities who live near coal ash dumps do not have to continue to bear the burden of pollution from coal-fired power stations.

Australian regulators do not require the development of The best way to prevent ongoing contamination is to remove closure and post-closure plans until after the closure of a the ash from the original dump to a purpose-built dump power station is announced. As described in the Port Augusta that adheres to the conditions outlined above. That way the case study above, this significantly impacts on surrounding community can be assured that both operator and regulator communities. It is imperative that Australian power station are taking a best practice approach to rehabilitation and operators be required to prepare detailed closure and closure, and are serious about mitigating the likelihood the post-closure rehabilitation plans, in consultation with the community will inherit a toxic legacy. surrounding communities, well in advance before the closure of the power stations. Community participation is fundamental to the development of rehabilitation and closure plans of ash dumps. People have Closure plans that adhere to best practice standards will a right to know exactly how companies propose to clean up not necessarily prevent continued leaching of hazardous this toxic waste, the conditions imposed on the companies contaminants from coal ash into groundwater and surface by regulators, and be able to hold both companies and water. Often the floor of ash dumps are in contact with regulators accountable for plans that do not adhere to underlying groundwater. Therefore the groundwater will best practice. continue to pass through the buried ash after closure and will continue to indefinitely leach toxic chemicals from the ash. It often takes decades for coal ash to reach its highest leaching potential.

“They’re as big as a suburb. They’re unlined. They’re leaching continuously into the lake. We don’t know what’s happening to the aquifers underneath or around the place. But certainly we know it’s leaching into the waterways. The government needs to get real about this. It needs to engage with the community - bring the community on board. It needs to have a full inquiry – but an independent inquiry. Not a government controlled inquiry.”

Mike Campbell, OAM, Community Environment Network

Closure/post-closure of coal ash dumps 49 General principles for safe closure The following section provides a checklist for ash dump rehabilitation that communities should demand when closure and post-closure plans for ash dumps are being developed.

1. A comprehensive corrective action plan is developed in 3. A strict time limit is set within which closure and post- partnership with the community that includes: closure plans must be prepared and implemented.

;; detailed descriptions of the ash dump and 4. A closure plan is agreed that is enforceable by both the surrounding area (site characterisation); environmental regulator and the community including the following elements: ;; extensive detail of the remedial action to prevent ongoing contamination of groundwater, surface water, ;; conditions of compliance are clear and have time air and land; frames for compliance;

;; requirements for quarterly community reports and ;; community enforcement actions are available to feedback on process; ensure the plan is followed strictly.

;; assessment of the contamination levels and ;; mechanisms that allow companies to bypass their composition of contaminants; obligations without thorough explanation, allow time to lapse without having implemented rehabilitation ;; detailed chemical analysis of the ash; within a strict time period, and/or waive rehabilitation requirements by deferring to reports such as third- ;; hydrogeological reports and maps; party engineering reports, must be removed. ;; groundwater and surface water monitoring data for 5. The operator is required to maintain a financial the previous 10 years; assurance before rehabilitation takes place. Financial ;; triggers for remedial action in the event of assurance details, including amount, must be publicly exceedances identified at monitoring points including available. groundwater, surface water, air and structural integrity 6. The impact of ash dump contaminants in water, surface monitoring points; and water, air and land are detailed, as are the environmental ;; requirement for timely public safety announcements. and human health impacts of these contaminants.

2. Comprehensive water quality modelling is available that 7. There are detailed descriptions of long-term monitoring estimates: program (at least 30 years) funded by the operator that include: ;; how quickly groundwater/surface water contamination will improve; ;; groundwater monitoring systems;

;; how much contamination is expected to continue to ;; remedial actions to restore groundwater to original leak into water sources; and conditions where contamination continues or in the event that contamination is discovered post-closure; ;; a prediction for the effect of pollution control and measures including removal of contaminated materials. ;; ash dump cap inspection and cap maintenance.

50 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy 8. All documents related to ash dump rehabilitation are publicly available, preferably on a publicly accessible website, including:

;; monitoring data;

;; reports used to develop the corrective action plan;

;; the final corrective action plan;

;; communications between the ash dump operator and regulators overseeing the rehabilitation and closure plan;

;; any penalty infringement notices or court orders “My home in Mannering Park has always been my issued for non-compliance; and sanctuary because it brings to me serenity, peace ;; all community update reports. and being one with nature. But unfortunately the downside is living right next to a coal-fired power station and ash dump. One day this power station will go. I hope it will be within my lifetime within the next 10 years or so. I want to make sure the legacy will not hurt any other living creature or thing. We need to make sure that it is completely rehabilitated. I don’t know enough about the science of that. And I don’t know the cost of that. But I do know the cost of it if we don’t.”

Sue Wynn, Mannering Park Progress Association, NSW

Closure/post-closure of coal ash dumps 51 8

Conclusion

52 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Coal ash dumps are one of the many hidden costs of coal and are a looming toxic legacy in Australia. As this report shows, these dumps are already causing water contamination, polluting aquatic ecosystems, and blowing toxic ash over communities who live near them.

The regulators who oversee these toxic dumps There are actions that regulators and power stations can overwhelmingly do not require financial assurances take now to minimise the risk of these toxic dumps. These to financially protect communities or best practice actions must be undertaken as a priority to ensure that management to stop contamination. Most ash dumps don’t environmental and human health and safety are protected have thorough and strict rehabilitation or post-closure plans. well into the future. These actions include the need for Very little information about ash dumps is available to the operators to redesign and relocate toxic sites in accordance public without engaging in lengthy and expensive Freedom of with rigorous engineering and construction standards to Information processes. protect groundwater and land from contamination, keep ash dry, ensure that dust suppression measures are strict to Most people have no idea how badly regulated and how prevent ash blowing onto communities and into waterways risky these toxic dumps are. Because of the dangerous heavy and prepare thorough rehabilitation and closure plans in metals and other pollutants in coal ash and other materials consultation with the communities that live near ash dumps. dumped in ash dumps these sites will be toxic in perpetuity. Regulators must ensure that every step of the process is This stymies future land use planning, threatens water enforceable with strict legal penalties for non-compliance. supplies, and poses an enormous and expensive human and environmental health risk. Until then, toxic ash dumps continue to be yet another toxic legacy left by the coal industry and lax regulators.

By acknowledging the extent of contamination and risk to environmental and human health, Australian governments have the power to impose best practice measures for coal ash dump management, rehabilitation and closure.

The following recommendations aim to ensure this happens.

“We need those answers. Not only just for our community. Everyone in Australia needs those answers because this is a problem at every coal-fired power station around Australia.”

Sue Wynn, Mannering Park Progress Association, NSW

Conclusion 53 Recommendations

1. All states initiate inquiries into coal ash dumps. Australian Parliaments nees to initiate inquiries into coal ash dumps to understand the full extent of the toxic threat and make strong recommendations to protect human and environmental health. 2. Rehabilitation plans: Australian governments should impose an immediate obligation on ash dump owners and operators to prepare best practice rehabilitation, closure plans and post-closure plans in consultation with the communities who live near these toxic sites. 3. Tougher groundwater regulation: Australian regulators who oversee ash dumps should immediately develop and implement actions to clean up and manage ash dumps causing groundwater contamination, including re-siting operational ash dumps to thoroughly rehabilitate existing sources of contamination to best practice standards. 4. Safe containment of existing ash dumps: Australian governments should impose immediate obligations on ash dump owners and operators to convert wet dumps to dry ash emplacements. 5. Bond payments to protect communities: Australian governments should immediately impose a bond or financial assurance on ash dumps to protect Australian communities from bearing the cost burden of poorly managed or poorly rehabilitated ash dumps. 6. National guidelines: Australian governments should develop and ensure the implementation of enforceable national best practice guidelines for ash dump management, rehabilitation, and closure and post-closure management (as outlined in this report) to mitigate as far as practicable the future threat of contamination of land, groundwater, and surface water and prevent harm to human health. 7. Transparency and availability of information: Australian governments should make access to information about ash dumps transparent and available to the Australian community, including all existing management plans, details of financial assurance, rehabilitation plans, pollution incidents, fines and other enforcement actions taken by regulators, monitoring data, hydrogeological assessment, predictions for future contamination, and predictions for future land-use planning.

Mt Piper Power Station. Source: Zephyr L'Green

54 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy Conclusion 55 References 12 See: https://www.cancer.org.au/preventing-cancer/work- 1 In the United States, where it has been studied for decades, place-cancer/silica-dust.html. the United States Environmental Protection Agency and public 13 See licence condition L5.3, licence number 11262: https://apps. interest groups have documented hundreds of sites where coal epa.nsw.gov.au/prpoeoapp/ViewPOEOLicence.aspx?DO- ash pollution has poisoned drinking water, air, and surface water. CID=65386&SYSUID=1&LICID=11262 See, for example, Earthjustice, ‘Coal Ash Contaminated Sites’, 14 Senate Environment and Communications Reference Committee, http://earthjustice.org/features/coal-ash-contaminated-sites. See, Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and resources also, documentation of damage in Australia: Environmental Justice projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibilities, (2019), pp Australia, Toxic and Terminal: How the regulation of coal-fired 159–160, 166–167. power stations fails Australian communities (2017), available 15 Senate Environment and Communications Reference Committee, at https://www.envirojustice.org.au/powerstations/, and India: Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and resources Shweta Narayan, Poisoned: Report on the Environmental Sampling projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibilities, (2019), p around the Coal Mines, Thermal Power Plants and Ash Ponds in 147. Tamnar Block of Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (2017), available at http:// www.healthyenergyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ 16 Senate Environment and Communications Reference Committee, Poisoned-English-Version-Aug-2017.pdf.. Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibilities, (2019), pp 2 International Energy Agency. Key coal trends, excerpt from: Coal 159–160, 166–167. information. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/ publication/KeyCoalTrends.pdf. Published 2016. 17 This process is known as activated carbon injection and can reduce mercury emissions by 85%. No power station in Australia 3 Gupta, T., Miller, A., and Mohan, Y, Current Perspective, Challenges has installed mercury pollution reduction technologies. and Opportunities for Fly Ash Utilisation and Pond Reclamation in Australian Scenario, Submission made to the Senate Standing 18 See Earthjustice and Physicians for Social Responsibility, ‘Ash Committee on Environment and Communications inquiry into in Lungs: How Breathing Coal Ash is Hazardous to Your Health,’ Rehabilitation of Mining and Resources Projects as it relates to available at https://earthjustice.org/blog/2014-july/ash-in-lungs- Commonwealth Responsibilities, Submission 74.2, 28 June 2018; how-breathing-coal-ash-is-hazardous-to-your-health Winn, Paul, Lynch, Joanna, and Woods, Georgina, Out of the Ashes: 19 See Earthjustice and Physicians for Social Responsibility, ‘Ash Water Pollution and Lake Macquarie’s ageing coal-fired power in Lungs: How Breathing Coal Ash is Hazardous to Your Health,’ stations, Hunter Community Environment Centre, 2019, p. 63. available at https://earthjustice.org/blog/2014-july/ash-in-lungs- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P3tIYeUe2ic7wG- how-breathing-coal-ash-is-hazardous-to-your-health; Nancy pQYszqLueW0DVxc-4s/view. Lauer, Avner Vengosh, and Shifeng Dai, ‘Naturally Occurring 4 Ash Development Association of Australia, http://www.adaa.asn. Radioactive Materials in Uranium-Rich Coals and Associated Coal au/resource-utilisation/ccp-utilisation, accessed 25 June 2019. Combustion Residues from China’ (2017) 51 Environment Science & Technology 1021. 5 Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion 20 US Geological Survey, Trace Elements in Coal Ash, Fact Sheet 2015 Residuals From Electric Utilities, Proposed Rule, 40 Code of –3037 (2015), available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2015/3037/pdf/ Federal Regulations § 257, 261, 264, 265, 268, 271, Subparts 302 fs2015-3037.pdf 35,128, 35,138 (June 21, 2010). 21 US EPA, Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response, US 6 See: Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress: Wastes in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code of Federal from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels (Mar. 1999). Regulations § 257, Subparts 35,139, 35,153, 35,168 (2015). 22 See Physicians for Social Responsibility and Earthjustice. ‘Coal Ash: 7 RTI International, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal The Toxic Threat to Our Health and Environment’ (2010), available Combustion Wastes, prepared for US EPA (2007), http://www. at https://www.psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/coal-ash.pdf southeastcoalash.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/epa-coal- 23 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Arsenic (CASRN combustion-waste-risk-assessment.pdf at 47, 4-8. 7440-38-2). http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm?fuseac- 8 See: http://www.de.com.au/environment/ash-management. tion=iris.showQuickView&substance_nmbr=0278. Accessed 08 April 2019. 24 Clara G. Sears, PhD, MS1, and Kristina M. Zierold, PhD, MS, ‘Health 9 Global CCS Institute, Publication, 3.3 Chemistry of Australian Fly of Children Living Near Coal Ash’, Global Pediatric Health, Volume Ashes, https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/impact- 4, 1-8 (2017), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ flue-gas-impurities-amine-based-pcc-plants/33-chemistry-aus- articles/PMC5533260/ tralian-fly-ashes/ Accessed 25 June 2019. 25 Clara G. Sears, PhD, MS1, and Kristina M. Zierold, PhD, MS, ‘Health 10 Global CCS Institute, Publication, 3.3 Chemistry of Australian Fly of Children Living Near Coal Ash’, Global Pediatric Health, Volume Ashes, https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/impact- 4, 1-8 (2017), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ flue-gas-impurities-amine-based-pcc-plants/33-chemistry-aus- articles/PMC5533260/ at 4-7 to 4-8. tralian-fly-ashes/ Accessed 25 June 2019. 26 Winn, Paul, Lynch, Joanna, and Woods, Georgina, Out of the Ashes: 11 Gupta, T., Miller, A., and Mohan, Y, Current Perspective, Water Pollution and Lake Macquarie’s ageing coal-fired power Challenges and Opportunities for Fly Ash Utilisation and stations, Hunter Community Environment Centre, 2019, https:// Pond Reclamation in Australian Scenario, Submission made drive.google.com/file/d/1P3tIYeUe2ic7wGpQYszqLueW0D- to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Vxc-4s/view. Communications inquiry into Rehabilitation of Mining and 27 Laura Ruhl, Avner Vengosh et al., The Impact of Coal Combustion Resources Projects as it relates to Commonwealth Responsibil- Residue Effluent on Water Resources: A North Carolina ities, Submission 74.2, 28 June 2018; Winn, Paul, Lynch, Joanna, Example (2012), http://www.southeastcoalash.org/wp-content/ and Woods, Georgina, Out of the Ashes: Water Pollution and uploads/2012/05/Impacts-of-Coal-Combustion-Waste-Effluent- Lake Macquarie’s ageing coal-fired power stations, Hunter on-NC-Waters1.pdf Community Environment Centre, 2019, p. 3; https://hub.global- 28 US EPA, Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent ccsinstitute.com/publications/impact-flue-gas-impurities- Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power amine-based-pcc-plants/33-chemistry-australian-fly-ashes. Generating Point Source Category 3-13 (April 2013) at 3-34, 3-38.

56 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy 29 See Christopher Rowe et al., ‘Ecotoxicological Implications of stations, Hunter Community Environment Centre, 2019, p 3 https:// Aquatic Disposal of Coal Combustion Residues in the United drive.google.com/file/d/1P3tIYeUe2ic7wGpQYszqLueW0D- States: A Review’ (2002) 80 Environmental Monitoring and Vxc-4s/view. Assessment 207, 215,231-236, (https://www.ecophys.fishwild. 39 https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/news/media-releases/2019/epame- vt.edu/wp-content/uploads/rowe-et-al.-2002-coal-waste.pdf); A. dia190115-lake-macquarie-pfas-testing-results. Dennis Lemly, ‘Selenium Impacts on Fish: An Insidious Time Bomb’ 40 Keam, K, Twenty-Five Years’ Experience Operating a HDPA Lined (1999) 5 Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1139 (https://www. Twin Pond Ashing System, Paper presented at World of Coal Ash fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/1361). Conference, Nashville, TN, May 5–7, 2015, p 3. (available at http:// 30 ‘Air particulate matter and cardiovascular disease: the epidemi- www.flyash.info/2015/085-keam-2015.pdf). ological, biomedical and clinical evidence’, J Thorac Dis. 2016 41 Keam, K, Twenty-Five Years’ Experience Operating a HDPA Lined Jan; 8(1): E8–E19, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ Twin Pond Ashing System, Paper presented at World of Coal Ash articles/PMC4740122/. See also, US EPA, Linking Air Pollution and Conference, Nashville, TN, May 5–7, 2015, p 1. (available at http:// Heart Disease at https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/linking-air- www.flyash.info/2015/085-keam-2015.pdf). pollution-and-heart-disease 42 Golder Associates, Section 53V Audit, Yallourn Ash Landfill, 31 See Earthjustice and Physicians for Social Responsibility, ‘Ash Hard Waste Landfill and Asbestos Landfill, Environmental in Lungs: How Breathing Coal Ash is Hazardous to Your Health,’ Audit, 27 October 2017, p. 10; Keam, K, Twenty-Five Years’ available at https://earthjustice.org/blog/2014-july/ash-in-lungs- Experience Operating a HDPA Lined Twin Pond Ashing System, how-breathing-coal-ash-is-hazardous-to-your-health Paper presented at World of Coal Ash Conference, Nashville, 32 The International Agency for Research on Cancer has determined TN, May 5–7, 2015, p 1. (available at http://www.flyash.in- that silica causes lung cancer in humans. World Health fo/2015/085-keam-2015.pdf). Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 43 Keam, K, Twenty-Five Years’ Experience Operating a HDPA Lined IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Twin Pond Ashing System, Paper presented at World of Coal Ash Humans, Vol. 100C, Silica Dust, Crystalline, in the form of Quartz or Conference, Nashville, TN, May 5–7, 2015, p 3. (available at http:// Cristobalite [2012], 355–406. www.flyash.info/2015/085-keam-2015.pdf). 33 M. Cimitile, ‘Is Coal Ash in Soil a Good Idea?’, Scientific American 44 Keam, K, Twenty-Five Years’ Experience Operating a HDPA Lined (Feb.6, 2009) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ Twin Pond Ashing System, Paper presented at World of Coal Ash coal-ash-in-soil/; see also J.J. Bilski & A.K. Alva, ‘Transport of Conference, Nashville, TN, May 5–7, 2015, pp 10–11. (available at Heavy Metals and Cations in a Fly Ash Amended Soil’, Bulletin http://www.flyash.info/2015/085-keam-2015.pdf). of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 55 No. 502 (1995) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00196028; 45 Keam, K, Twenty-Five Years’ Experience Operating a HDPA Lined R.L. Aitken & L.C. Bell, ‘Plant Uptake and Phytotoxicity of Boron Twin Pond Ashing System, Paper presented at World of Coal Ash in Australian Fly Ashes’, Plant and Soil Volume 84, No. 245 (1985) Conference, Nashville, TN, May 5–7, 2015, p 15, (available at http:// p 245 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42935594?seq=1#page_ www.flyash.info/2015/085-keam-2015.pdf). scan_tab_contents; J.T. Sims et al., ‘Evaluation of Fly Ash as a Soil 46 https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/about-us/news-centre/news-and-up- Amendment for the Atlantic Coast Plain: Soil Chemical Properties dates/news/2015/july/28/epa-fines-energy-australia-for-ash-slur- and Crop Growth’, Water, Air and Soil Pollution Volume 81 No. 363 ry-spill. (1995); A. Singh et al., ‘Effects of Fly Ash Incorporation on Heavy 47 Golder Associates, Section 53V Audit, Yallourn Ash Landfill, Hard Metal Accumulation, Growth and Yield Responses of Beta vulgaris Waste Landfill and Asbestos Landfill, Environmental Audit, 27 Plants’, Bioresource Technology 99 No. 7200 (2008); S.S. Brake et al., October 2017, p 4. ‘Effects of Coal Fly Ash Amended Soils on Trace Element Uptake in Plants’, Environmental Geology 45 No. 680 (2003); A.K. Gupta 48 See: EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd, Licence #10961, licence & S. Sinha, ‘Growth and Metal Accumulation Response of Vigna condition LI_L1 (issued 19 June 1996, last amended 22 November radiata L. var PDM 54 (Mung Bean) Grown on Fly-Ash Amended 2017). Available at: https://portal.epa.vic.gov.au/irj/portal/anony- Soil: Effect on Dietary Intake’, Environmental Geochemistry and mous?NavigationTarget=ROLES://portal_content/epa_content/ Health 31 No. 463 (2009); D.C. Adriano et al., ‘Effects of High Rates epa_roles/epa.vic.gov.au.anonrole/epa.vic.gov.au.searcha- of Coal Fly Ash on Soil, Turfgrass, and Groundwater Quality’, Water, non&trans_type=Z001. Air, and Soil Pollution Vol. 139 No. 365 (2002). 49 Golder Associates, Section 53V Audit, Yallourn Ash Landfill, Hard 34 S. Adak, K. Adhikari, K. Brahmachari, ‘Effect of Fly Ash on Crop Waste Landfill and Asbestos Landfill, Environmental Audit, 27 Coverage around Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant in Rural October 2017, p 4. India’, International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and 50 Keam, K, Twenty-Five Years’ Experience Operating a HDPA Lined Biotechnology (IJEAB) Volume 1, Issue-3 (Sep. 2016) http://dx.doi. Twin Pond Ashing System, Paper presented at World of Coal Ash org/10.22161/ijeab/1.3.34. Conference, Nashville, TN, May 5–7, 2015, p 5, (available at http:// 35 C. Chan, Reclamation of Fly Ash Lagoons: An ecological approach. www.flyash.info/2015/085-keam-2015.pdf). PhD Thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong (1998), https://core. 51 For full history of issues at the KVFA ash site, including this ac.uk/download/pdf/48544512.pdf. incident, see: Environment Protection Authority v Delta Electricity 36 J. Bilski and A. Alva ‘Transport of heavy metals and cations in a fly [2009] NSWLEC 11, 5. ash amended soil’, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and 52 Environmental Protection Authority v Delta Electricity [2009] Toxicology (1995), https://www.osti.gov/biblio/103429-transport- NSWLEC 11, 20. heavy-metals-cations-fly-ash-amended-soil. 53 Environmental Protection Authority v Delta Electricity [2009] 37 Winn, Paul, Lynch, Joanna, and Woods, Georgina, Out of the Ashes: NSWLEC 11, 32. Water Pollution and Lake Macquarie’s ageing coal-fired power 54 Environmental Protection Authority v Delta Electricity [2009] stations, Hunter Community Environment Centre, 2019, p 3 https:// NSWLEC 11. drive.google.com/file/d/1P3tIYeUe2ic7wGpQYszqLueW0D- 55 https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/news/media-releases/2017/ Vxc-4s/view. epamedia17020602. 38 Winn, Paul, Lynch, Joanna, and Woods, Georgina, Out of the Ashes: 56 https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/news/media-releases/2019/epa- Water Pollution and Lake Macquarie’s ageing coal-fired power media190305-origin-energy-fined-for-dust-emissions-at-erar- ing-power-station.

Conclusion 57 57 To view Eraring power station EPL see: https://apps.epa.nsw. 72 See: https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5981706/myuna-bay- gov.au/prpoeoapp/Detail.aspx?instid=1429&id=1429&op- sport-and-recreation-centre-to-close-after-review-of-eraring- tion=licence&searchrange=licence&range=POEO%20li- power-stations-ash-dam/. cence&prp=no&status=Issued. 73 See: https://www.originenergy.com.au/about/investors-media/ 58 US EPA, Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion media-centre/statement_on_myuna_bay_recreation_centre. Residuals in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code html. of Federal Regulations § 257.104. For a detailed comparison 74 See: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/TVA_Kingston_ of groundwater contamination by disposal type, see RTI Fossil_Plant_coal_ash_spill. International, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal 75 See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tennessee- Combustion Wastes, prepared for US EPA (2007), http://www. coal-ash-spill/. southeastcoalash.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/epa-coal- combustion-waste-risk-assessment.pdf at 4-3. Table 4-1 shows 76 See: https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2018/11/07/ that dry disposal in composite-lined landfills is far safer than any verdict-reached-favor-sickened-workers-coal-ash-cleanup-law- other disposal type. suit/1917514002/. 59 US EPA, Inhalation of Fugitive Dust: A Screening Assessment of 77 See: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122018/tox- the Risks Posed by Coal Combustion Waste Landfills, 2009 and ic-coal-ash-spill-illness-verdict-kingston-tennessee-clean- U.S. EPA, Damage Cases: Fugitive Dust Impact, Technical Support up-workers-compensation. Document, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640 (2014). 78 In 2018 the Victorian Parliament passed the Environment 60 US EPA, Inhalation of Fugitive Dust: A Screening Assessment Protection Act 2018 which will come into force in 2020 and will of the Risks Posed by Coal Combustion Waste Landfills, 2010, replace the 1970 Act. https://www.efis.psc.mo.gov/mpsc/commoncomponents/ 79 Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic) s 19A (EP Act). viewdocument.asp?DocId=935784779. 80 For access to Victoria’s licence see: https://portal.epa.vic.gov.au/ 61 Ruhl, L., Vengosh, A., Dwyer, G.S., Hsu Kim H., Schwartz, G., irj/portal/anonymous?NavigationTarget=ROLES://portal_content/ Romanski, A., and Smith, S.D. (2012). ‘The impact of coal epa_content/epa_roles/epa.vic.gov.au.anonrole/epa.vic.gov. combustion residue effluent on water resources: A North au.searchanon&trans_type=Z001. Carolina example’. Environmental Science & Technology, 46, 81 EP Act 1970 (Vic) ss 38, 40 and 44. 12226–12233 and Harkness, J.S., Sulkin, B., Vengosh, A. (2016) ‘Evidence for coal ash ponds leaking in the southeastern United 82 EP Act 1970 (Vic) ss 41–42. States’. Environmental Science & Technology, 50, (12), 6583–6592. 83 EP Act 1970 (Vic) s 39. 62 See www.ashtracker.org; https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/ 84 EP Act 1970 (Vic) s 45. files/files/Texas-Coal-Ash-Report.pdf; https://insideclimate- 85 Environment Protection (Scheduled Premises) Regulations 2017 news.org/news/16012019/coal-ash-groundwater-contamina- (Vic) Sch. 1; See general licence condition LI_G6 for Licence tion-map-arsenic-power-plant-utility-reports #10961 held by EnergyAustralia Yallourn, Licence #11149 held by 63 Earthjustice, Waste Deep: Filling Mines with Coal Ash is Profit for AGL Loy Yang, and Licence #46436 held by Hazelwood Power Industry, But Poison for People, available at https://earthjustice. Partners. Licences can be downloaded from the EPA Licence org/sites/default/files/library/reports/earthjustice_waste_deep. Portal: https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-ap- pdf. provals/search-licence. 64 Ash Development Association of Australia, URL, Accessed 25 86 Victoria Environment Protection Authority, EPA Position June 2019. http://www.adaa.asn.au/resource-utilisation/applica- Paper, Financial assurances for licences and works approvals, tion-and-uses/mine-remediation. Publication 1591.1 (October 2017), p 1. 65 EnergyAustralia NSW, Mt Piper Ash Placement Project: Lamberts 87 Victoria EPA, Publication 841, Groundwater Attenuation North Annual Environmental Management Report, September Zones, April 2002, p 4 (http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/~/media/ 2016 – August 2017, p 17. Publications/841.pdf). 66 EnergyAustralia NSW, Mt Piper Ash Placement Project: Lamberts 88 State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria) North Annual Environmental Management Report, September Cl 17. 2016 – August 2017, p 31. 89 Victoria Environment Protection Authority, Information Bulletin, 67 AECOM Services Pty Ltd, Ash Dam Augmentation Project Groundwater Attenuation Zones, Publication #841 (April 2002), Environmental Assessment, Prepared for Origin Energy pp 1–2. Resources Limited, 15 August 2018, p. 13. 90 Victoria Environment Protection Authority, Information Bulletin, 68 AECOM Services Pty Ltd, Ash Dam Augmentation Project Groundwater Attenuation Zones, Publication #841 (April 2002), p Environmental Assessment, Prepared for Origin Energy 2. Resources Limited, 15 August 2018, pp. ES5, 7-11–7-13. 91 Source: Environment Protection Act 1970 Section 20 Licence, 69 For consecutive Environmental Assessments for the Eraring AGL Loy Yang Pty Ltd, Licence 11149, Issued 24 February 1997 (last ash dump see: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index. amended 21 November 2017) p 12. pl?action=view_job&job_id=9554. 92 Source: Environment Protection Act 1970 Section 20 Licence, 70 See: AECOM Services Pty Ltd, Ash Dam Augmentation Project AGL Loy Yang Pty Ltd, Licence 11149, Issued 24 February 1997 (last Environmental Assessment, Prepared for Origin Energy amended 21 November 2017) p 12. Resources Limited, 15 August 2018 (https://majorprojects.accelo. 93 Victoria EPA, Publication 840.2, The cleanup and management com/public/83578142d38fe001a136ca904d071543/Eraring%20 of polluted groundwater, April 2016, p 4 (http://www.epa.vic.gov. Ash%20Dam%20Augmentation%20MOD%201-%20%20 au/~/media/Publications/840%202.pdf). Environmental%20Assessment.pdf). 94 As well as receiving ash waste from Loy Yang B, the Loy Yang 71 AECOM Services Pty Ltd, Ash Dam Augmentation Project A ash landfill site also receives saline water from Yallourn Environmental Assessment, Prepared for Origin Energy power station. AGL Loy Yang, Loy Yang A Power Station: AGL’s Resources Limited, 15 August 2018, p 19. Response to the Issues Raised by the Community During the EPA’s Brown Coal-Fired Power Station Licence Reviews, 6 August

58 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy 2018, p 7 https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod. Prescribed Environmentally Relevant Activities, 2017. Available app.vic-engage.files/3715/3359/9643/AGL_Loy_Yang_A_ at: https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/pr- response_to_community.pdf. co-common-conditions-prescribed-eras.pdf 95 For example by amending the licence: Environment Protection 119 Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Act 1970 (Vic) s 20A. Protection, Model Operating Conditions: ERA 60—Waste 96 Victoria Environment Protection Authority, Section 62A Clean Up Disposal. 201, condition PML009 (L2). Available at: https:// Notice, issued to Energy Brix Australia Corporation Pty Ltd, 24 environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/ May 2017, p 9. pr-co-landfill.pdf. 97 Correspondence with Environment Protection Authority, 120 See: https://maps.gladstone.qld.gov.au/html/?Viewer=Plan- Victoria, 20 May 2019. ningScheme. 98 Dams Safety Act 1978 (NSW) s 14. 121 https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/env-authorities/pdf/eppr00971913. pdf conditions W4-L12. 99 Dams Safety Act 1978 (NSW) Schedule 1. The Sawyers Swamp Creek Ash dam at Wallerawang is also listed as a prescribed dam 122 CS Energy, Kogan Creek Power Station https://www.csenergy. under Schedule 1. com.au/what-we-do/generating-energy/kogan-creek-pow- er-station. 100 Dams Safety Act 1978 (NSW) s 18. 123 https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/env-authorities/pdf/epml00417213. 101 Dams Safety Committee, Document DSC2C, Surveillance pdf p 1. Reports for Dams, June 2010. 124 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-26/toxic-ash-illegal- 102 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) Part ly-stored-tarong-power-station-gympie-brisbane/7656260. 5.7A. 125 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-26/toxic-ash-illegal- 103 See: New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, ly-stored-tarong-power-station-gympie-brisbane/7656260. Environment Compliance Report, Coal as dams and emplacements, 2017 (https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/ 126 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-17/coal-byprod- F296D19215D348A8BC16DEB4D2021A52.ashx). uct-coal-reuse-stanwell-corporation/7749490. 104 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) ss 70, 127 https://dow.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htm- 296–307. l?id=c2ecb74291ae4da2ac32c441819c6d47. 105 https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5833023/asbestos-and- 128 Correspondence with Department of Environment and demolition-waste-found-at-vales-point-power-station-ash- Regulation, Western Australia, 14 May 2019. dam/. 129 Contaminated Sites Act 2003, Basic Summary of Records 106 See: Environment Protection Licence #761, Version date 27 Search Response, ID 13807, Lot 1 On Plan 24276 Hope September 2017, Issued to Sunset Power International Pty Ltd. Valley WA 6165, accessed 14 May 2019. Contaminated sites database is accessible here: https://dow.maps.arcgis.com/ 107 Thomas Muddle, ‘Vale Point Solar Project: Environmental Impact apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c2ecb74291ae4da2ac- Statement’ (Jacobs Group, 31 January 2018), xi. See: https://www. 32c441819c6d47. planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/project/5276/. 130 Contaminated Sites Act 2003, Basic Summary of Records 108 See: https://www.yourvoiceourcoast.com/greater-lake-mun- Search Response, ID 13807, Lot 1 On Plan 24276 Hope morah-structure-plan. For Part 1 of the Plan see: https://www. Valley WA 6165, accessed 14 May 2019. Contaminated sites yourvoiceourcoast.com/43378/documents/101278; for Part 2 see: database is accessible here: https://dow.maps.arcgis.com/ https://www.yourvoiceourcoast.com/43378/documents/101279. apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c2ecb74291ae4da2ac- 109 Liddell Power Station Environmental Protection License, p1. 32c441819c6d47. Available at: https://apps.epa.nsw.gov.au/prpoeoapp/View- 131 Contaminated Sites Act 2003, Basic Summary of Records POEOLicence.aspx?DOCID=139678&SYSUID=1&LICID=2122 Search Response, ID 13807, Lot 1 On Plan 24276 Hope 110 NSW Environment Protection Authority, Final Compliance Valley WA 6165, accessed 14 May 2019. Contaminated sites Report, Compliance Audit Program: Coal Ash Dams – AGL database is accessible here: https://dow.maps.arcgis.com/ Macquarie Pty Ltd Liddell power station EPL 2122, March 2017. apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c2ecb74291ae4da2ac- 111 NSW Environment Protection Authority, Final Compliance 32c441819c6d47. Report, Compliance Audit Program: Coal Ash Dams – AGL 132 Correspondence with Department of Environment and Macquarie Pty Ltd Liddell power station EPL 2122, March 2017, p. Regulation, Western Australia, 21 May 2019. 1. 133 Annual Audit Compliance Report Form, Licence L4706/1972/17, 112 https://ehp.qld.gov.au/waste/pdf/recycling-waste-qld-2017-re- Electricity Generation and Retail Corporations T/A Synergy, port.pdf. Reporting Period 01/07/2017–30/06/2018, p 2. 113 http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/re- 134 Muja power station, Licence L4706/1972/17, Issued 16 October sources/0a517ed7-74cb-418b-9319-7624491e4921/files/fact- 2014, p 16. sheet-waste-profile-qld_0.pdf. 135 Ash Development Association of Australia, Submission dated 17 114 Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 (Qld) Cl 64 & Sch 7, Pt April 2018, Senate Environment and Communications Reference 1, cl 22. Committee, Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and 115 Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 (Qld) Sch 2, cl 12 resources projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibili- ties, p 2. 116 Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) s 319. 136 S. Slesinger, Coal Ash: Why it is better recycled than as a waste 117 Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) ss 320-320G. (Feb. 13, 2014) https://www.nrdc.org/experts/scott-slesinger/ 118 Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage coal-ash-why-it-better-recycled-waste; US EPA, Methodology Protection, Model Operating Conditions: ERA 60—Waste for Evaluating Encapsulated Beneficial Uses of Coal Combustion Disposal. 2017. Available at: https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/assets/ Residuals (2014), https://www.epa.gov/coalash/methodolo- documents/regulation/pr-co-landfill.pdf See also guidance on gy-evaluating-encapsulated-beneficial-uses-coal-combus- making licence conditions in the Queensland Department of tion-residuals. Environment and Heritage Protection, Common Conditions:

Conclusion 59 137 http://www.adaa.asn.au/resource-utilisation/application-and-us- 158 Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals es/agriculture. in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code of Federal 138 Winn, Paul, Lynch, Joanna, and Woods, Georgina, Out of the Regulations § 257.83 (2015). Ashes: Water Pollution and Lake Macquarie’s ageing coal-fired 159 Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals power stations, Hunter Community Environment Centre, in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code of Federal 2019, p 63. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P3tIYeUe2ic7wG- Regulations § 257.84 (2015) pertaining to inspection requirements pQYszqLueW0DVxc-4s/view. for CCR landfills. 139 US EPA, Coal Combustion Residual Beneficial Use Evaluation: 160 See, for example, Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Fly Ash Concrete and FGD Gypsum Wallboard, February 2014, Residuals in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/ of Federal Regulations § 257.80, which requires the owner documents/ccr_bu_eval.pdf or operator of a coal ash landfill to adopt measures that will 140 Coal Ash Order 2014 (NSW). effectively minimise coal ash from becoming airborne at the facility, including coal ash fugitive dust originating from coal 141 Resource Recovery Order under Part 9, Clause 93 of the ash units, roads, and other coal ash management and material Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation handling activities. 2014 (NSW); Coal Ash Order 2014 (NSW) Part 4: Generator requirements. 161 Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code of Federal 142 Resource Recovery Order under Part 9, Clause 93 of the Regulations § 257.90-95 (2015). Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 (NSW); Coal Ash Order 2014 (NSW) Cl 4.9. 162 Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code of Federal 143 Coal Ash Order 2014 (NSW) cll 4.10–4.12. Regulations § 257.96–98 (2015). 144 https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/media-centre/asx-and-me- 163 Port Augusta City Council, Submission dated 18 April 2018, dia-releases/2019/january/agl-coal-ash-update. Senate Environment and Communications Reference 145 Available: https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/ Committee, Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and regulation/wr-ga-coal-combustion-beneficial-resource.pdf. resources projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibili- 146 https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/ ties, p 4. regulation/wr-ga-coal-combustion-beneficial-resource.pdf. 164 Port Augusta City Council, Submission dated 18 April 2018, 147 https://www.ancold.org.au/?product=guidelines-on-tail- Senate Environment and Communications Reference ings-dams-planning-design-construction-operation-and-clo- Committee, Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and sure-may-2012. resources projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibili- ties, p 6. 148 https://www.ancold.org.au/?product=guidelines-on-tail- ings-dams-planning-design-construction-operation-and-clo- 165 Port Augusta City Council, Submission dated 18 April 2018, sure-may-2012. Senate Environment and Communications Reference Committee, Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and 149 Golder Associates, Section 53V Audit, Yallourn Ash Landfill, Hard resources projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibili- Waste Landfill and Asbestos Landfill, Environmental Audit, 27 ties, p 6. October 2017, p 4. 166 Port Augusta City Council, Submission dated 18 April 2018, 150 EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd, Licence #10961, licence Senate Environment and Communications Reference condition LI_L1 (issued 19 June 1996, last amended 22 November Committee, Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and 2017). Available at: https://portal.epa.vic.gov.au/irj/portal/anony- resources projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibili- mous?NavigationTarget=ROLES://portal_content/epa_content/ ties, p 6. epa_roles/epa.vic.gov.au.anonrole/epa.vic.gov.au.searcha- non&trans_type=Z001. 167 Port Augusta City Council, Submission dated 18 April 2018, Senate Environment and Communications Reference 151 As required by licence conditions. See Section 5 of this report. Committee, Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and 152 Such as to the Dams Safety Committee. See: Dams Safety resources projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibili- Committee, Document DSC2C, Surveillance Reports for Dams, ties, p 6. June 2010. 168 Port Augusta City Council, Submission dated 18 April 2018, 153 Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals Senate Environment and Communications Reference in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code of Federal Committee, Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and Regulations § 257, Subpart D (2015). resources projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibili- 154 We note that storage of flue gas desulfurisation materials are ties, p 7. not applicable in Australia as no Australian coal-fired power 169 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-16/company-fined-for- generators have such pollution reduction technologies installed. dust-over-port-augusta/9997998. 155 See Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals 170 https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/business_and_industry/industry-up- in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code of Federal dates/flinders-power-port-augusta. Regulations § 257.70(b), Subpart D (2015). GM components 171 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-16/port-augusta-power- consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) must be at least station-clean-up/9653688. 60mm thick. 172 Port Augusta City Council, Submission dated 18 April 2018, 156 Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals Senate Environment and Communications Reference in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code of Federal Committee, Parliament of Australia, Rehabilitation of mining and Regulations § 264.301(c)(1)(i) (2015). resources projects as it relates to commonwealth responsibili- 157 Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals ties, p 15. in Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 257.70(d) (2015).

60 Environmental Justice Australia Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy

Environmental Justice Australia Telephone: 03 8341 3100 / 1300 336 842 Facsimile: 03 8341 3111 Email: [email protected] Website: www.envirojustice.org.au Post: PO Box 12123, A’Beckett Street VIC 8006 Address: Level 3, the 60L Green Building, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton

This publication uses 100% post-consumer waste recycled fibre.